BX  7323    .S89  1890x 
Stuart,   T.  McK. 
Errors  of  Campbellism 


Digitized  by 

the  Internet  Archive 

in  2014 

https://archive.org/details/errorsofcampbellOOstua_0 


Errors  of  Campbellism. 


BEING 


A  REVIEW 


OF  AI,I.  THE 

FUNDAMENTAL  ERRORS  OF  THE  SYSTEM  OF  FAITH 
AND  CHURCH  POLITY  OF  THE  DENOMINATION 
FOUNDED  BY  ALEXANDER  CAMPBELL. 


BY 

T.  McK.  STUART,  A.  M.,  D.  D., 

A  MINISTER  OF  THE  METHODIST  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 


CINCINNATI:  CRANSTON  &  STOWE. 
NEW  YORK:  HUNT  &  EATON. 
1890. 


Copyrifjht 
BY  CRANSTON  &  STOWE, 
1890. 


PREFACE. 


For  many  years  the  writer  has  believed  that  there 
ought  to  be  accessible  to  the  ministry  and  member- 
ship of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  a  review 
of  the  theories  of  Campbellism,  sufficiently  complete 
clearly  to  present  and  fully  meet  their  errors.  As  a 
system  of  religious  formalism,  it  is  the  most  aggress- 
ive of  modern  times,  and  has  had,  in  the  half  cen- 
tury of  its  existence,  a  phenomenal  growth.  This 
would  be  a  matter  of  congratulation  to  all  true  Cliris- 
tians  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  its  theories  place  it 
squarely  in  conflict  with  other  evangelical  Christians. 
It  teaches  doctrines  that,  if  true,  make  other  Christian 
denominations  fundamentally  and  radically  wrong, 
and  therefore  it  is  of  necessity  brought  into  conflict 
with  them. 

It  is  a  notable  fact  that  wherever  this  system  se- 
cures a  permanent  foothold  there  is  in  such  com- 
munity, even  outside  of  this  denomination,  a  leaven 
of  disbelief  in  spiritual  religion;  and  in  such  com- 
munities it  is  usually  quite  difficult  to  secure  anything 
more  than  a  merely  formal  profession  of  religion.  It 
is  customary  with  their  ministry,  and  especially  with 
their  evangelists,  to  hold  up  to  public  ridicule  every- 
thing looking  towards  the  emotional  or  experimental 

3 


4 


PREFACE. 


in  religion;  proclaiming,  at  the  same  time,  a  religion 
of  outward  obedience  alone. 

It  must  not  be  inferred,  from  these  remarks,  that 
it  is  thought  there  is  an  absolute  want  of  all  spirit- 
uality with  those  who  profess  this  faith.  Such  is  not 
the  case.  There  are  very  frequently  to  be  found 
among  them  Christians  of  deep  spirituality ;  but  they 
are  not  such  because  of  the  system,  but  in  spite  of  it. 
The  earnest  soul-examination,  the  deep  heart-search- 
ing, the  fervent  penitence,  the  faith  that  requires  com- 
plete self-surrender,  belong  in  no  sense  to  this  creed; 
and  necessarily  so,  for  were  these  required,  as  ante- 
cedents to  baptism  for  remission  of  sins,  there  would 
be  also  required,  as  the  outcome  of  baptism  under 
such  circumstances,  an  equally  clear  spiritual  experi- 
ence of  the  removal  of  condemnation,  and  of  full  ac- 
ceptance with  God;  and  then  the  fact  of  baptism 
would  not  be  the  sole  evidence  to  the  sinner  of  his 
salvation.  And  besides,  if  these  intense  feelings  of 
sinfulness  and  sinful  need  must  precede  pardon,  then  it 
follows  that,  on  their  theory,  without  these  there  can  be 
no  genuine  baptism,  and  the  baptism  must  be  repeated 
whenever  such  previous  conditions  do  truly  exist. 

It  is  because  of  this  incompatibility  that  their  teach- 
ers uniformly  opp(.»se  the  sinner's  praying  for  forgive- 
ness. Praying  might  lead  to  intense  earnestness  in 
seeking  Christ,  and  this  would  necessarily  demand  a 
witnessing  Spirit  to  remove  the  felt  condemnation. 
So  it  must  not  be  allowed,  else  the  system  is  put 
in  jeopardy. 


PREFACE. 


5 


Baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins,  administered  to 
the  earnest  and  thoughtful  and  to  the  frivolous  and 
careless  alike,  must  be  held  as  valid  for  this  pur- 
pose, or  there  would  be  inextricable  confusion  in  the 
theory,  or  frequent  baptisms,  until  the  sinner  is  found 
in  a  genuine  state  of  belief  and  penitence.  This 
would  be  inconvenient.  Hence  spirituality  is  no  es- 
sential element  in  the  system. 

Many  of  our  ministry  and  people  hold  to  the  ex- 
ceedingly curious  notion  that  if  error  is  let  alone  it 
will  die  of  itself ;  and  the  best  way  to  overthrow  this 
system  of  error  is  to  disregard  it  and  its  methods  of 
interpretation  and  preach  the  truth.  Error  has  been 
a  long  time  in  dying  under  this  process.  When  it 
has  been  let  alone,  it  has  invariably  triumphed.  So 
that  this  policy  has  proven  a  failure ;  and  it  is  high 
time  a  more  successful  one  was  adopted  in  its  stead. 
And  the  additional  advice  to  preach  the  truth  will,  if 
fully  conformed  to,  set  aside  the  policy  of  letting 
error  alone.  Error,  to  be  effectually  met,  must  be 
designated.  There  are  many  people  who  can  not  see, 
or  will  not  see,  the  incompatibility  of  two  proposi- 
tions until  they  are  placed  side  by  side  ;  and  any 
fencing  against  designating  the  error,  will  simply,  in 
these  cases,  make  the  truth  ineffectual. 

There  is  a  sickly  sentimentality,  quite  extensive 
in  the  evangelical  Churches,  that  leads  many  to  sink 
all  differences  of  opinion,  even  in  vital  matters,  and 
to  brother  everything  that  calls  itself  by  the  name  of 
Christian,  however  heterodox  it  may  be.    And  this 


6 


PREFACE. 


same  sentiment  is  also  very  much  hurt  at  any  in- 
cisive antagonizing  of  error,  especially  if  it  is  so  de- 
fined that  there  can  be  no  mistake  as  to  what  is  meant. 
AVhile  there  is  no  need  of  invective  or  biting  sarcasm 
in  dealing  with  error,  there  is  need  of  open,  firm, 
decided,  unequivocal  opposition  to  it,  in  the  interest 
of  that  charity  that  seeks  the  glory  of  God  and  the 
supreme  good  of  the  race  of  men. 

It  is  also  deemed  important  by  the  writer,  that 
our  ministry  and  people  should  not,  for  the  sake  of 
mistaken  courtesy,  yield  to  the  discourteous  claim  of 
these  people  to  take  to  themselves,  as  theirs  by  right, 
the  distinctive  appellation  of  the  Christian  Church. 
They  are  not  the  Christian  Church,  else  the  Christian 
Church  in  the  Christian  ages  has  been  a  failure,  most 
absolute  and  unequivocal.  To  style  them  such,  be- 
cause they  demand  it,  is  discourteous  to  the  great  body 
of  Christians  throughout  the  world.  It  is  a  very  dif- 
ferent thing  from  admitting  that  they  are  Christians, 
which  can  most  cheerfully  be  done  when  the  claim  is 
not  made  that  they  are  the  Christians. 

The  antagonism  between  the  doctrines  of  Meth- 
odism and  those  of  Campbellism  is  so  radical  that 
there  can  be  no  compromise,  and  will  necessarily,  in 
the  future,  be  open  conflict.  It  is  well,  therefore,  that 
every  Methodist  minister  prepare  himself  to  meet  in- 
telligently and  successfully  this  form  of  error.  The 
writer  hopes  that  in  this  work  he  will  be  of  some  as- 
sistance in  this  direction. 

T.  McK.  STUART. 

CoRMxc,  Iowa,  1890. 


CONTENTS. 


Chapter  I. 

THE  FOUNDERS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 

Thomas  and  Alexander  Campbell — A  Brief  Sketch  of  their 
Lives — The  Evohition  of  the  Central  Idea,  Baptism,  as  a  Con- 
dition to  Pardon  of  Sin — The  First  Society  in  the  New 
Faith — 1823  the  Date  of  the  Inauguration  of  this  New  Re- 
form,  Page  13 

Chapter  II. 

the  central  idea  of  CAMPBELLISM. 

Justification  by  Water  Baptism — It  is  the  Keynote  of  Doctrines 
and  Polity — It  leads  to  a  Denial  of  the  Immediate  Operation 
of  the  Holy  Ghost — The  Doctrine  Papistic  in  Fact — Canons 
of  Church  of  Rome  and  Campbellism  compared — A  Shght 
Modification  of  the  Old  Doctrine  of  Baptismal  Regenera- 
tion— It  teaches  Justification  by  Works — Antagonistic  to 
the  Fundamental  Principle  of  the  Reformation — Sola  fides 
justificat,  21 

Chapter  III. 

THE  DIALECT  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 

"  Reign  of  Heaven,"  "Aliens,"  "  Naturalized  Citizens  "  In 
Christ"  baptized  by  Water—"  Obedience  of  Faith  "— "  Con- 
fession"— The  "Action  of  Baptism  " — "  Gospel "  used  in  same 
Limited  Manner — "  The  Loaf  in  the  House  of  the  Lord,"  .  35 

Chapter  IV. 

THE  THEORY  OF  POSITIVE  INSTITUTES. 

Sacrifices  for  the  Remission  of  Sins  under  the  Old  Testament 
Dispensation — Trespass  Offerings  cited — Sin  of  our  First 
Parents,  and  the  Theory  paralleled  by  these — Positive  Insti- 

7 


8 


CONTENTS. 


tutcs  under  the  Dispensation  of  the  Baptist — Baptism  e<? 
Repentance,  not  i'k;  Keniission — Use  of  ^ianTilu — Confession 
hefore  Baptism  in  John's  Baptism — Jesus  forgives  Sin  under 
Dispensation  of  John  without  "Positive  Institutes" — 
When  was  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven  set  up?   ...  Page  44 

Chapter  V. 

THE  COMMISSION. 

The  Commission  according  to  the  Four  EvangeHsts— To  dis- 
ciple made  Synonymous  with  Conversion — Baptism  and 
DiscipUng  the  same— St.  Mark  xvi,  16,  not  Water  Bap- 
tism— The  Syriac  on  the  Same — Wanting  in  Genuineness — 
Commission  according  to  St.  Luke — Remission  of  Sim  vpon 
his  Name — 'E-i-Commission,  according  to  St.  John — The 
Prerogative  of  remitting  Sins,  61 

Chapter  VI. 

CAMPBELLISM  ON  FAITH  AND  REPENTANCE. 

Faith  put  before  Repentance — Mistake  concerning  the  Nature 
of  Faith — If  Faith  and  Repentance  were  placed  in  their 
Right  Relation,  they  must  change  their  Interpretation  of 
Acts  ii,  38 — Assert  but  One  Kind  of  Faith — Faith  purifies  the 
Heart — Pure  Hearts  before  pardoned  therefore,  73 

Chapter  VII. 

THE  SPECIAL  TERRITORY  OF  THE  THEORY:   ACTS  II,  38. 

Claim  to  be  at  the  Door  of  the  Gospel  Dispensation — Setting 
up  the  Kingdom  and  laying  down  the  Law  of  Induction 
into  this  Kingdom — "Be  converted,"  "reform,''  "turn," 
baptized  same  thing — Contradicted  by  Facts — For  Remission 
of  Sins  and  Baptism  not  connected  by  f'f — 'E~i,  upon  the 
Name,  means  upon  Faith  in  the  Name — Water  Baptism  a 
Profession  of  Faith  in  Christ,  81 

Chapter  VIII. 

OTHER  SUPPOSED  PROOF-TEXTS. 

Attempt  to  prove  the  Doctrine  by  the  Case  of  Cornelius — An 
Argumentative  Boomerang — Baptism  of  Paul,  Acts  xxii,  16— 


CONTENTS. 


9 


Ananias's  Commission,  Acts  ix,  17 — "Wash  away  thy 
Sins" — Baptize  in  the  Middle  Voice — The  Syriac  on  the 
Same — "Washing  by  Prayer"  the  Teaching  of  the  Pas- 
sage— Paul's  Account  of  his  Commission— Paul  not  sent  to 
baptize,  but  to  preach  the  Gospel — Baptisms  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles  immediate — Household  of  Cornelius — Simon 
the  Sorcerer — Lydia — Philippian  Jailer — John's  Disciples  at 
Ephesus,  Page  90 

Chapter  IX. 

BAPTISM  INTO    DEATH,   INTO    CHRIST,   AND   BAPTISMAL  WASHINGS. 

Eom.  vi,  3,  4;  Col.  ii,  11,  12;  1  Cor.  iii,  13— Difference  between 
baptism  into  Christ  and  into  the  Name  of  Christ — Perversion 
of  1  Cor.  xii,  13 — One  Baptism,  Eph.  xiv,  5— Baptismal  Wash- 
ings, Eph.  V,  25,  26 — Baptism  assumed  in  these  cases,  1  Cor. 
vi,  11 — Cleansing  in  Heb.  x,  20 — Attempt  to  draft  Titus 
iii,  5,  into  Support  of  the  Theory — Gal.  iii,  27 — An  Author 
his  own  Best  Interpreter,  104 

Chapter  X. 

SALVATION  BY  BAPTISM,  BY  WORKS,  BY   "OBEDIENCE   OF  FAITH." 

1  Peter  iii,  21,  saved  by  Water,  or  by  the  Ark  througli  the  Water, 
which? — Proper  Interpretation,  (j  Kai,  "by  which  (Spirit) 
also ;"  (^i'  vSaToc,  through  the  Water — Justification  by  Works, 
and  James  ii,  21-24— Paul  and  James  reconciled — The  At- 
tempt to  reconcile  on  Campbell's  Theory — Gal.  ii,  16 — 
"  Obeying  the  Gospel "  not  Baptism,  116 

Chapter  XI. 
Campbell's  seven  causes  of  justification. 
Confusion  in  Thought— Five  of  his  Causes  but  One  Cause— 
"  Works  "  not  a  Cause — Faith  then  the  Only  Conditional 
Cause — Repentance  and  Godly  Sorrow — Godly  Sorrow  the 
Sorrow  of  a  Baptized  Person — "  Bath  of  Regeneration,"  so- 
called,  an  Exegetical  Mistake— "  Pure  Water,"  in  Heb.  x, 
22,  not  Water  for  cleansing — In  the  New  Birth  Water  called 
by  Mr.  Campbell  the  Mother — John  iii  reviewed — The  New 
Birth  Essentially  Spiritual,  128 


10 


COXTEXTS. 


Chapter  XII. 

AN  APPEAL  TO  AUTHORITIES. 

Attempts  to  support  the  theory  by  the  Teaching  of  the  Primi- 
tive Christian  Fathers — By  the  Creeds  and  Symbols  of  Prot- 
estant Churches — Also  Eminent  Christian  Teachers  of 
the  Reformation -Luther,  Calvin,  Wesley,  Clarke,  and 
Others,   Pagb  139 

Chapter  XIII. 

SUNDRY  OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  DOCTRINE. 

It  declares  the  Whole  Evangelical  Dispensation  a  Failure  for 
Centuries — The  Doctrine  makes  it  impossible  to  account 
for  Virtue  and  Holiness  in  Other  Christians — Contradicts 
Christian  Experience — It  requires  Rebaptism  in  the  Back- 
slider, and  when  the  Conditions  have  not  been  int«-lligently 
fulfilled — It  can  not  be  preached  and  applied  to  all  Condi- 
tions and  Circumstances — It  makes  the  Outbreaking  Back- 
slider a  Child  of  the  Kingdom — It  makes  that  a  Condition 
to  Pardon  of  Sin  a  Person  can  not  perform  for  Himself,  .  100 

Chapter  XIV. 

JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  VERSUS  WORKS. 

Article  IX,  Methodist  Articles  of  Religion,  misrepresented — 
The  Question  the  Justification  of  the  Sinner — What  he 
must  do — James  and  Paul  again — Baptism  Works  and  not 
Works— Justification  by  Works,  that  is,  by  Baptism,  con- 
tradicted by  many  Passages  of  Scripture — Tlie  Meaning  of 
Faith  only — Justification  of  Abraham  the  Type  of  the  Jus- 
tification of  All— Mr.  Braden's  Attempt  at  the  Explanation 
of  Rom.  iii  and  iv,  175 

Chapter  XV. 

CAMPBELLISM  ON  THE  OPERATION  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 

Consistency  requires  that  they  deny  it— Mr.  Campbell's  Con- 
fusion and  Contradiction  of  Himself — Defines  Himself  more 
fully  in  the  Debate  with  Professor  Rice — An  Attempt  to 
maintain  Experimental  Religion  after  Some  Sort — Review 
of  Campbell's  Objections — Objections  aimed  at  an  Imag- 
inary Idea,   ....  186 


CONTENTS. 


11 


Chapter  XVI. 

OBJECTIONS  FURTHER  CONSIDERED. 

The  Immediate  Operation  of  the  Spirit  does  not  imply  Inspira- 
tion or  Miracle-working  Power — His  Fourth,  Fifth,  Sixth, 
and  Seventh  Arguments  assume  the  Point  in  Dispute  a 
Peiilio  Principii — The  Personal  Spirit  promised — The  Com- 
forter— His  Offices  defined — An  Illegitimate  Deduction  made 
from  those  Passages  that  ascribe  Regeneration,  Sanctifica- 
tion,  and  Salvation  to  the  Word — Paul's  Commission  mis- 
interpreted,  Page  200 

Chapter  XVII. 

OFFICE  AND  WORK  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 

Their  System  beset  with  Difficulties — The  Spirit  reproves,  re- 
generates, baptizes,  cleanses,  purifies,  seals,  sanctifies, 
anoints,  witnesses,  comforts,  helps — Lydia,  "  whose  Heart 
the  Lord  opened" — Regeneration  and  "born  from  Above," 
"  born  again,"  "  begotten  of  God,"  Same  Thing— Perversion  of 
John  iii,  8 — "Born  of  that  he  receives"  a  Supposed  Diffi- 
culty— Titus  iii,  5,  explained — Quickening  by  the  Spirit,  .  213 

Chapter  XVIII. 

BAPTISM  OF  THE   HOLY  GHOST. 

An  Effort  to  limit  to  Apostolic  Days — The  Twelve  Apostles 
only  baptized  at  Pentecost  contradicted  by  the  Scrip- 
tures— The  Promise  of  the  Father  the  Baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost— A  Perversion  of  1  Cor.  xii,  13 — The  Rendering 
"  pour  out  from  my  Spirit "  to  meet  the  Difficulty— Rom.  vi, 
3,  4;  Col.  ii,  11,  12,  Spiritual  Baptism,  229 

Chapter  XIX. 

IMMEDIATE  OPERATION  OF  THE    SPIRIT  CONTINUED — SYNONYMS  OF 
BAPTISM. 

Wash,  cleanse,  purify,  sanctify,  seal,  anoint — Cleansing  by  the 
AVord  refuted— So  also  saving  by  the  Gospel— Gospel  de- 
fined—Ps.  li,  Ezek.  xxx\4,  25-27— The  Witness  of  the  Spirit, 
This  alone  Sufficient  Testimony  to  pardon— The  Holy  Ghost 
as  an  Abiding  Comforter — Numerous  Forms  of  Expression 
for  the  Immediate  Influence  of  the  Spirit — Objections  to  the 


12 


CONTENTS. 


Doctrine  of  Campbellism — It  destroys  the  Efficacy  of 
Prayer — It  leaves  the  Backslider  without  Evidence  of  Par- 
don,  Page  243 

Chapter  XX. 

OB.IECTIONS  OF  CAMI'IJELLITE  TEACIIKRS  TO  METHODIST  DOCTRINES 
AND  POLITV. 

A  System  of  Proselyti^m — Objection  to  the  Name  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church — A  Plea  for  Unity— The  Name  Christian 
Church  not  Divine — Christians,  all  Followers  of  Christ 
such— The  True  Name  of  the  Church,  Church  of  God — The 
New  Name  of  Followers  of  Christ,  "Sons"  of  God — As- 
sault upon  Article  VIII  of  Methodist  Discipline — Camp- 
bellism on  Reconciliation  refuted,  Article  II  sustained — 
The  Sinner  seeking  Christ — The  Penitent  Publican's 
Prayer,  257 

Chapter  XXI. 

CAMPBELLISM  ON  CREEDS,  ETC. 

Originally  aimed  at  Christian  Unity— Disavows  Creeds,  but 
has  one — A  Creed  Exceedingly  Narrow — Will  exclude  the 
Greatest  Number  of  Christians  of  any  Creed  in  Christen- 
dom— Their  Church  Polity:  Campbell  its  Author— Their 
Discipline— Probationers  in  their  Church — Their  Assurance 
and  Confidence,  277 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  FOUNDERS  OF  CAMPBELUSM. 

In  entering  upon  the  investigation  of  that  system 
of  religious  doctrine  or  faith  called  Campbellism,  it 
is  proper  and  right  that  we  give  a  brief  sketch  of  its 
founder,  or,  more  properly,  founders;  for  it  was  the 
evolution  not  of  one  mind  alone,  but  of  two — those 
of  father  and  son,  Thomas  Campbell  and  Alexander 
Campbell.  The  doctrinal  system  of  this  so-called 
reformation  is  the  sole  product  of  these  two  men,  in- 
somuch that  since  their  day  it  has  rigidly  adhered  to 
the  principles  taught  by  these  men ;  and  in  no  mate- 
rial respect,  and  in  scarcely  any  minor  points  also,  is 
there  the  slightest  particle  of  difference  between  the 
representative  teachers  of  to-day  and  the  great  ex- 
pounders of  its  creed  at  first. 

It  may  be  said,  without  fear  of  successful  denial, 
that  Alexander  Campbell  has  impressed  his  doctrinal 
ideas,  and  even  the  methods  of  elucidating  and  en- 
forcing them,  upon  his  followers  as  no  other  great 
religious  leader  in  modern  times  has  done.    He  is  a 

13 


14 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELUSM. 


very  forceful  illustration  of  tlic  power  possessed  by  a 
man  of  commanding  genius  and  force  of  character 
over  his  fellow-men.  Creeds  of  other  Christian  de- 
nominations have  usually  been  the  productions  of 
many  minds,  and  the  result  of  the  deliberations  of 
councils  of  learned  men.  J5ut  not  so  Campbellism;  it 
is  the  work  of  one,  or,  at  most,  of  two  minds. 

■  The  assumed  rejection  of  all  human  creeds  gave 
the  Campbells  a  peculiarly  favoral)le  opportunity  to 
impress  their  doctrinal  ideas  upon  those  to  whom  they 
were  addressed,  as  the  very  essence  of  Bible  teaching. 
The  marvel  is,  that  the  astute  founder  of  the  system 
and  his  more  intelligent  followers  have  deceived  them- 
selves with  the  belief  that  their  doctrine  is  anything 
more  than  another  human  creed,  though  not  presented 
to  the  world  in  articles  of  religion  or  definite  formu- 
las of  doctrine — a  creed  as  really  commanding  assent 
of  every  one  who  seeks  to  ally  himself  with  them, 
as  any  creed  in  the  broad  domain  of  Christendom. 

Alexander  Campbell,  the  man  who  more  especially, 
by  his  force  of  character,  executive  ability,  and  firm 
faith  in  his  own  convictions,  was  the  founder  of  the  sys- 
tem under  consideration,  was  the  eldest  son  of  Thomas 
Campbell,  and  was  born  in  County  Antrim,  Ireland, 
September  12,  1788. 

Thomas  Campbell  became,  in  early  life,  a  preacher 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Ireland,  and  while  in 
the  old  country  was  engaged  in  either  preaching  or 
teaching.    In  1807  he  emigrated  to  America,  leaving 


FOUNDERS  OF. 


15 


his  family  still  in  Ireland,  to  follow  him  subsequently 
to  his  new  home,  when  once  he  had  provided  for 
them.  In  1808,  however,  his  family,  under  the  con- 
duct of  Alexander,  embarked  for  America,  but  were 
shipwrecked  on  the  coast  of  Scotland,  which  caused 
them  to  tarry  in  that  country  for  awhile,  until,  under 
auspices  more  favorable,  they  might  essay  to  start 
again  for  their  new  home.  While  in  Scotland,  he  was 
brought  into  contact  with  many  leading  minds  in  Scot- 
tish religious  circles,  and  enjoyed  the  opportunity  of 
about  one  year's  tuition  in  the  University  of  Glasgow. 
In  September,  1809,  they  safely  reached  New  York, 
and  shortly  after  joined  their  father  in  Western  Penn- 
sylvania. 

Thomas  Campbell,  on  his  arrival  in  America,  iden- 
tified himself  with  the  Seceder  Synod  and  Presbytery 
of  Chartres,  in  Western  Pennsylvania,  which  his  son 
Alexander  likewise  did  upon  his  arrival.  In  a  short 
time  after  his  uniting  with  this  Presbytery,  Thomas 
Campbell  was  arraigned  for  a  violation  of  the  usages  of 
the  Church  with  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  was 
condemned,  whereupon  he  appealed  unto  the  Synod,  and 
was  released  from  condemnation,  because  of  informali- 
ties in  the  proceedings ;  but  the  matter  was  at  the  same 
time  referred  to  a  committee,  which  reported,  censur- 
ing him.  This  caused  him  to  withdraw  from  the  Se- 
ceders,  and  in  1809  he  and  other  disaffected  parties  or- 
ganized "The  Christian  Association  of  Washington,'' 
in  Western  Pennsylvania.    The  purpose  of  this  soci- 


16 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


cty,  from  its  "  Declaration "  of  principles  formulated 
and  published,  seems  to  have  been  an  effort  to  fra- 
ternize Christians  of  divergent  views  upon  the  funda- 
mental truths  of  the  Christian  Scriptures,  and  was  cer- 
tainly a  commendable  undertaking.  The  fourth 
article  of  the  Declaration  especially  disclaims  the  pur- 
pose of  creating  a  new  Church  organization.  It  is  one 
of  the  marvels  of  human  inconsistency  that  an  institu- 
tion that  had  its  origin  in  a  protest  against  party 
spirit  and  dogmatism  in  the  Church,  should  culminate 
in  one  of  the  most  imperiously  dogmatic  of  the  re- 
ligious organizations  of  modern  times,  and  at  the  same 
time  foster  a  spirit  of  controversy  that  is  most  un- 
qualifiedly condemned  in  the  preamble  of  the  "Dec- 
laration.'' 

Alexander  Campbell  began  preaching  in  1810. 
He  does  not  seem  at  first  to  have  received  any  spe- 
cial authorization  from  any  society,  Church,  or  asso- 
ciation. 

About  this  time  Thomas  Campbell  made  a  propo- 
sition to  unite  with  the  Synod  of  Pitttjburg  of  the 
Eegular  Presbyterian  Church,  but  was  refused. 
Among  the  reasons  assigned  was  this,  that  Alexander 
Campbell  "  had  been  allowed  to  exercise  his  gifts  of 
public  speaking  without  any  regular  ordination." 
This  refusal  resulted  in  the  foundation  of  the  "Chris- 
tian Association  of  Brush  Run,"  on  the  4th  of  May, 
1811.  After  the  organization  of  this  small  denomina- 
tion, for  such  it  was^  Alexander  Campbell  was,  by  its 


FOUNDERS  OF. 


17 


first  council,  session,  or  whatever  it  may  be  styled, 
licensed  to  preach. 

On  the  12th  day  of  June,  1812,  he  was  baptized 
by  immersion,  by  Elder  Luce,  of  the  Baptist  Church, 
after  having  made,  as  he  supposed,  the  proper  con- 
fession, namely :  ^'  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
Son  of  God.'^  And  it  was  about  this  time  he  began 
to  regard  faith  as  simply  "the  belief  of  the  Scrip- 
tures on  the  testimony  of  the  apostles.'' 

In  the  fall  of  1813,  Alexander  Campbell  and  the 
Brush  Run  organization  formed  a  union  with  the 
Red-Stone  Association  of  the  Baptist  Church.  In 
August,  1823,  he  withdrew  from  this  Baptist  Associa- 
tion, in  order  to  escape  arraignment  and  trial  by  it, 
and  expulsion  therefrom  for  heresy.  It  was  in  the 
fall  of  this  same  year  that  he  had  his  discussion,  in 
the  State  of  Kentucky,  with  Mr.  McCalla,  in  which 
he,  according  to  his  own  statement,*  first  fully  and 
maturely  espoused  his  distinguishing  tenet  of  baptism 
as  a  necessary  condition  in  order  to  the  pardon  of  sin. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  system,  as  a  new  doctrinal 
adventure,  was  now  successfully  launched  upon  the 
arena  of  conflict  with  all  other  sister  denominations; 
and  that  which  had  its  birth  professedly  as  a  protest 
against  ecclesiastical  domination,  dissension,  and  dog- 
matism, came  into  existence  as  a  very  theological  Ish- 
mael,  its  hand  against  all  others. 


♦"Christian  System,"  p.  180. 

2 


18 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


Mr.  Campbell  began,  in  the  spring  of  1823,  the 
publication  of  a  periodical,  which  he  entitled  The 
Christian  Baptist,  which,  however,  ultimately  gave 
place  to  The  Millennial  Harbinger.  These  papers 
were  the  exponents  of  his  new  theories ;  and  in  Ken- 
tucky, Western  Pennsylvania,  South-eastern  Ohio, 
and  Western  Virginia,  the  new  Church  grew  quite 
rapidly,  by  accessions  from  the  Baptist  Church  and 
the  Christian  Church,  so-called,  embracing  many  of  the 
followers  of  James  O'Kelly,  and  that  branch  of  Arian 
Baptists  usually  called    New  Lights." 

Alexander  Campbell  was  a  kind  of  theological 
gladiator.  He  rejoiced  in  a  theological  discussion  as  a 
means  of  disseminating  his  peculiar  views.  And  at 
first  he  was  quite  successful,  inasmuch  as  his  oppo- 
nents were  not  well  enough  acquainted  with  his  system, 
and  the  course  adopted  in  its  maintenance,  to  combat  it 
successfully.  They  struck  in  the  dark,  while  he  was 
able,  through  the  published  polemical  theology  and 
formularies  of  his  opponents,  to  know  just  where  and 
how  to  make  his  assaults.  His  enthusiastic  followers 
boast  much  of  his  prowess  in  this  direction,  and  affect 
to  believe  that  he  was  victor  in  every  contest ;  but  his 
debate  with  Professor  X.  L.  Rice,  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  held  in  Lexington,  Kentucky,  was  anything 
but  a  victory  for  this  new  system.  In  this  long  dis- 
cussion, which  was  fully  published,  Campbellism,  in 
its  distinctive  tenets  and  methods  of  defense,  was  en- 
tirely brought  to  light,  so  that  future  defenders  of 


FOUNDERS  OF,  19 

evangelical  truth  were  advised  as  to  just  what  they 
were  called  upon  to  meet. 

The  founder  of  this  system  of  faith,  in  his  work 
entitled  ^'  The  Christian  System/^  has  given  to  the 
world  his  doctrinal  views,  as  well  as  the  polity  of  his 
Church.  We  shall  have  occasion  to  make  frequent 
reference  to  this  work,  which  presents  the  system  com- 
pletely as  devised,  elucidated,  and  promulgated  by  its 
author.  And  every  careful  reader  of  the  work  will 
observe,  by  comparison  with  the  present  polity  and 
doctrinal  teachings  of  its  societies,  as  represented  by 
the  leading  preachers  of  the  denomination,  that  "  The 
Christian  System"  is  a  full  and  complete  disciplinary 
and  doctrinal  guide  for  the  people  of  this  faith,  as  much 
so  as  any  discipline  or  confession  of  faith  of  any  sister 
Church,  although  it  has  not  been  formally  adopted  by 
the  Church  at  large  as  such ;  for,  according  to  the  teach- 
ing of  its  founder,  each  particular  society  is  independ- 
ent of  all  others.  (See  "Christian  System,"  p.  73, 
sec.  4.*)    And  therefore  it  is  always  possible  for 

*"  Still,  all  these  particular  congregations  of  the  Lord, 
whether  at  Rome,  Corinth,  or  Ephesus,  though  equally  inde- 
pendent of  one  another  as  to  the  management  of  their  own 
peculiar  affairs,  are,  by  virtue  of  one  common  Lord,  one  faith, 
one  baptism,  and  one  common  salvation,  but  one  kingdom 
or  Church  of  God,  and,  as  such,  are  under  obligations  to  co-op- 
erate with  one  another  in  all  measures  promotive  of  the  great 
ends  of  Christ's  death  and  resurrection." 

The  edition  of  "The  Christian  System"  from  which  the 
author  quotes,  is  the  fourth  edition,  published  at  Cincinnati. 
The  definition  of  Church  polity  begins  with  p.  72. 


20 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


them  to  deny  the  existence  among  them  of  any  au- 
thoritative discipline,  such  as  Churches  that  have  a 
central  or  connectional  form  of  government  have. 
But  it  nevertheless  is  true  that  there  is  no  society 
among  tliem  that  is  not  governed  by  the  disciplinary 
rules  laid  down  by  Mr.  Campbell  in  The  Christian 
System." 

It  will  also  be  seen,  by  the  discriminating  reader 
of  his  chapters  on  '^Church  Order''  and  "  Christian  Dis- 
cipline/' that  he  expects  the  doctrines  he  inculcates  to 
form  the  bond  of  union  among  Churches.  It  is  there- 
fore a  very  natural  evolution  of  faith  in  his  followers 
to  hold  that  their  interpretations  of  the  Scriptures  are 
infallibly  correct,  since  they  have  so  eminent  an  ex- 
ample set  for  them  in  their  great  leader. 

A  system  that  arraigns  all  Christendom  as  pro- 
foundly and  fundamentally  wrong,  must,  in  the  very 
nature  of  the  case,  predicate  a  great  deal  upon  the  as- 
sumed correctness  of  its  interpretations  of  Scripture. 
And  these  must  be  met  by  an  appeal  to  the  truth  and 
reason.  No  flattering  unction,  that  error,  left  to 
itself  will  perish,  will  meet  this  case.  It  is  a  large, 
vigorous,  healthy  system  of  religious  formalism,  that 
makes  no  hesitation  in  assaulting  other  denominations. 
And  if  spiritual  Christianity  would  maintain  its  own, 
it  must  not  take  refuge  in  that  coward's  plea  of,  I^t 
error  alone  and  preach  the  truth.  The  truth  is  often- 
times most  successfully  preached  by  showing  where 
the  pitfalls  of  error  are. 


TEE  CENTRAL  IDEA. 


21 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  CENTRAL  IDEA  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 

The  key-note  of  this  system  of  faith  is  the  doc- 
trine of  baptism  by  water  as  a  necessary  condition  to 
the  remission  of  sins.  This  doctrine  Alexander  Camp- 
bell specifically  states  in  the  following  language 

The  apostle  Peter,  when  first  publishing  the  gospel 
for  the  Jews,  taught  them  that  they  were  not  for- 
given their  sins  by  faith,  but  by  an  act  of  faith,  by  a 
believing  immersion  into  the  Lord  Jesus."  His  fol- 
lowers, in  their  discussions  with  representatives  of 
other  confessions  of  faith,  usually  affirm  it  in  the  fol- 
lowing language :  "  Christian  baptism  is  a  necessary 
condition  in  order  to  the  remission  of  the  past  sins  of 
the  penitent  believer."  The  writer  has  had  several 
joint  discussions  with  difiPerent  representative  men 
among  them,  and  this  was,  in  all  material  respects, 
their  method  of  stating  this  fundamental  doctrine  oi 
their  creed.  By  Christian  baptism  they  mean  dipping 
in  water  in  the  name  of  Christ,  or  what  they  are 
pleased  to  call  immersion.  By  condition "  they 
mean  the  personal  act  of  the  free  moral  agent,  by 
which  he  accepts  of  the  salvation  provided  him  in 


♦"Christian  System,"  p.  194. 


22  ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 

Christ.  By  "  necessary  is  meant  that  without  which 
no  one  can  be  saved,  whatever  else  he  may  have  or  may 
not  have.  Remission  of  sins  they  regard  as  the  same 
as  pardon,  justification,  reconciliation,  adoption,  wash- 
ing away  of  sin,'^  and  the  like.  By  "  past  sins  they 
mean  the  sins  committed  before  baptism.  In  their 
dialect  the  unbaptized  is  an  "  alien,"  and  as  such  has 
not  the  right  of  prayer  or  petition.  In  this  phrase 
"  past  sins "  they  think  they  avoid  the  force  of  the 
argument  that,  if  baptism  is  a  condition  to  pardon,  it 
ought  to  be  repeated  at  every  recovery  from  backsliding. 
This  fanciful  distinction  of  sinners  into  aliens  and 
rebellious  members  of  Christ's  kingdom,  is  a  sheer 
invention,  to  counteract  the  doctrinal  embarrassments 
they  are  thrown  into  by  the  system.  By  penitent  be- 
liever they  mean  the  believer  who,  after  believing,  is 
penitent.  Faith  must  precede  repentance,  and  with 
them  is  simply  the  belief  of  testimony.  "  No  testimony, 
no  faith  ;  for  faith  is  only  the  belief  of  testimony."  f 
This  doctrine,  thus  briefly  defined,  is  the  key-stone 
to  the  whole  doctrinal  superstructure  of  Carapbcllism. 
It  is  to  this  all  the  system  has  been  conformed  ;  their 
views  of  faith  and  prayer,  the  operation  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  the  witness  of  the  Spirit, 
assurance,  reconciliation,  inherited  depravity,  even 
Church  polity, — all  are  interpreted  in  the  light  of  this 
idea.    For  example,  if  the  immediate  office  of  the 


*"  Christian  System,"  p.  187.    tid.  p.  113. 


THE  CENTRAL  IDEA. 


23 


Holy  Ghost  in  conviction  and  conversion  were  ac- 
cepted as  it  is  by  other  evangelical  Christians,  and  if 
the  Spirit^s  direct  witness  to  conversion  were  allowed, 
they  could  not  well,  in  the  face  of  the  positive  testi- 
mony of  those  who  had  received  the  assurance  of  par- 
don without  baptism,  explain  how  such  could  take 
place  without  the  previous  fulfillment  of  this  assumed 
"  necessary  condition  hence  they  must  deny  the  im- 
mediate operation  of  the  Spirit,  and  hold  that  the 
witness  of  the  Spirit,  as  claimed  by  others,  is  a  delu- 
sion. Because  of  this  logical  necessity  their  ministry 
generally  are  unsparing  in  their  ridicule  of  the  idea 
of  the  direct  witness  of  the  Spirit.  In  this,  however, 
they  do  not  exhibit  the  moderation  and  good  taste  of 
Mr.  Campbell,  for  it  is  difficult  to  make  out  clearly 
his  views  on  this  matter  from  his  writings.  At  one 
time  he  seems  to  deny  the  doctrine,  at  another  to  ad- 
pait  it. 

But  one  thing  is  certain,  he  denied  the  immediate 
operation  of  the  Spirit  upon  the  heart  of  the  sinner 
in  conviction  and  conversion ;  but  how  the  Holy 
Ghost  can  impress  the  heart  of  a  child  of  God  so  as 
to  give  help,  strength,  joy,*  and  not  be  a  direct  witness 
to  his  salvation,  is  something  difficult  to  understand. 
For,  most  evidently,  if  the  child  of  God  receives  the 
Holy  Spirit  as  a  "  helper,^^  "  comforter,'^  "  sanctifier,'' 
giving  "  love,  joy,  peace,  long-suffering,  gentleness, 


Christian  System,"  pp.  64,  05. 


24 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLJSM. 


goodness,  fidelity,  meekness,  temperance,"  as  Camp- 
bell seems  to  teaob,*  he  must  be  able  to  recognize  this 
as  a  fact  in  his  experience,  and  therefore  be  able  to 
testify  to  it.  But  in  this  have  simply  the  illus- 
tration that  his  followers  are  very  much  more  ultra 
Campbellites  than  the  founder  of  the  system  ;  for  the 
only  "joy,  peace,  goodness,"  etc.,  they  will  admit  of 
is  entirely  subjective,  or  such  as  the  mind  obtains 
through  its  own  beliefs  and  convictions.  For  ex- 
ample, the  advocate  of  this  doctrine  believes  that  he 
must  first  believe  the  Bible ;  secondly,  repent  of  his 
sins ;  thirdly,  confess  that  "  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of 
God,"  and  be  baptized  on  this  confession.  This 
having  done,  his  conscience  approves  him  in  it,  be- 
cause he  has  done  what  he  believes  to  be  right ;  and 
now,  upon  this  purely  subjective  conviction,  he  be- 
lieves himself  to  be  in  the  kingdom  of  God  and  an 
heir  of  heaven  ;  this  furnishes  him  a  degree  of  rest, 
satisfaction,  or  peace.  It  is  altogether  in  the  mind, 
and  every  proposition  may  be  false  upon  which  it  is 
founded,  and  yet  the  same  confidence  exist.  The  dev- 
otee of  Islam  or  papistic  absurdities  may  have,  and 
often  does  have,  the  same. 

If  there  is  no  immediate  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 


*  Christian  System,"  p.  66.  See  also  pp.  354-356,  Vol.  II, 
"Richardson's  Memoirs  of  A.  Campbell."  His  biographer 
here  proves  that  ^Ir.  Campbell  accepted  the  belief  that  "  those 
who  are  sons  of  God  receive  the  Holy  Spirit  promised  through 
faith."    See  Appendix  A. 


THE  CENTRAL  IDEA. 


25 


then  his  assurance  of  pardon  is  altogether  subjective, 
and  to  be  sure  of  it  he  must  postulate  his  infallibility  in 
interpreting  the  Scriptures.  Hence  there  can  be  but 
little  marvel  that  the  advocate  of  this  faith  is  sure  he 
is  right  and  all  others  wrong ;  for  his  conviction  that 
he  is  a  child  of  God  depends  upon  the  certainty  that 
he  is  not  mistaken  in  his  interpretation.  But  this 
will  be  treated  of  in  all  its  bearings  when  we  come  to 
deal  with  the  errors  of  this  system,  relative  to  the 
offices  of  the  Spirit.  We  have  called  attention  thus 
fully  to  this,  at  this  juncture,  that  the  reader  may 
see  how  relatively  all-important  is  this  central  idea, 
and,  in  the  discussion  of  it,  realize  that  it  does  not 
stand  or  fall  for  itself  alone,  but  for  a  whole  system 
of  belief  that  is  built  up  around  it. 

The  doctrine  of  baptism  as  a  condition  to  the  re- 
mission of  sin  is  papistic,  in  fact.  While  they  dis- 
claim thi^,  and  are  very  bitter  in  denunciation  of  those 
who  so  charge  them,  yet  it  is  impossible  to  minds  not 
under  the  bonds  of  the  system  to  distinguish  the  dif- 
ference. They  and  the  papists  quote  the  same  pas- 
sages of  Scripture,  and,  allowing  for  the  difference  in 
ecclesiastical  systems,  put  the  same  construction  upon 
them.  As,  for  example,  Matt,  xvi,  18:  Thou  art 
Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  will  I  build  my  church,  and 
the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it!^'  This  is 
used  by  them  to  show  that  the  Church  was  not  founded 
until  the  day  of  Pentecost ;  that  Peter  opened  the  door 
to  it  by  his  sermon  on  that  occasion  in  the  supposed 

3 


26 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


announcement  of  the  condition  of  baptism  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins.  And  in  reference  to  the  confession 
that  Peter  made,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 
living  God,''  which  called  forth  the  Savior's  remark, 
it  is  assumed  that  this  confession  is  the  "rock"  upon 
which  Christ  proposed  to  establish  his  Church.  Hence 
they  require  it  of  all  candidates  for  baptism. 

Along  with  this  passage  from  the  Gospel  of  Mat- 
thew, they  usually  join  one  from  John  xx,  23 :  "  Whose- 
soever sins  ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  unto  them  ;  and 
whosesoever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained  !"  This, 
they  claim,  is  the  commission  as  given  by  John,  and 
that  the  disciples  were  to  remit  sins  by  baptism.  When 
pressed  to  define  this  latter  passage,  they  usually  de- 
fine it  as  the  conferring  power  to  remit  sins  by  bap- 
tism, which  evidently  makes  a  perpetual  priesthood 
out  of  the  ministry,  and  confers  upon  them  marvelous 
powers.  Compare  the  following  canons  of  the  Church 
of  Rome  with  A.  Campbell's  claims  f«r  the  adminis- 
trator in  the  rite  of  baptism  (Council  of  Trent,  Seventh 
Session  :) 

Canon  IV:  "  If  any  one  saith  that  the  sacraments 
of  the  New  Law  are  not  necessary  unto  salvation,  but 
superfluous,  and  that  without  them,  or  without  a  de- 
sire thereof,  men  obtain  of  God,  through  faith  alone, 
the  grace  of  justification — though  all  the  sacraments 
are  not  indeed  necessary  for  every  individual — let  him 
be  anathema." 

Canon  YI :  "  If  any  one  saith  that  the  sacraments 


THE  CENTRAL  IDEA. 


27 


of  the  New  Law  do  not  contain  the  grace  which  they 
signify,  or  that  they  do  not  confer  the  grace  on  those 
who  do  not  place  an  obstacle  thereunto,  as  though 
they  were  merely  outward  signs  of  grace  or  justice  re- 
ceived through  faith,  and  certain  marks  of  Christian 
profession,  whereby  believers  are  distinguished  amongst 
men  from  unbelievers,  let  him  be  anathema/' 

Canon  VIII :  "  If  any  one  saith  that,  by  the  said 
sacraments  of  the  New  Law,  grace  is  not  conferred 
through  the  act  performed  (ex  opere  operato),  but  that 
faith  alone  in  the  divine  promises  suffices  for  obtain- 
ing the  grace,  let  him  be  anathema." 

On  page  128  of  the  Catechism  of  the  Council  of 
Trent  we  have  the  following :  "  The  remission  of  all 
sin,  original  and  actual,  is  therefore  the  peculiar  effect 
of  baptism.  That  this  was  the  object  of  its  institution 
by  the  Lord  and  Savior,  is  a  truth  clearly  deduced 
from  the  testimony  of  St.  Peter,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
array  of  evidence  that  might  be  adduced  from  other 
sources.  '  Do  penance,'  says  he,  ^and  be  baptized,  every 
one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remis- 
sion of  your  sins.' " 

Further  on  we  read :  "  But  in  baptism  not  only  is 
sin  forgiven,  but  with  it  all  the  punishment  due  to 
sin  is  remitted  by  a  merciful  God and  Baptism 
remits  all  punishment  due  to  original  sin  in  the  next 
life." 

On  page  123  we  have  the  following:  "If,  then, 
through  the  transgression  of  Adam,  children  inherit 


28 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


the  stains  of  primeval  guilt,  is  there  not  stronger 
reason  to  conclude  that  the  efficacious  merits  of 
Christ  the  Lord  must  impart  to  them  that  justice  and 
those  graces  which  will  give  them  a  title  to  reign  in 
life  eternal  ?  This  happy  consummation  baptism  alone 
can  accomplish.  The  pastor,  therefore,  will  inculcate 
the  absolute  necessity  of  administering  baptism  to  in- 
fants.'' * 

Beside  this  place  the  following  from  A.  Camp- 
bell (Christian  System,  pages  19-i  and  195),  and  it 
could  be  duplicated  from  most  any  of  their  authors. 
Campbell  says :  ^'  The  apostle  Peter,  when  first  pub- 
lishing the  gospel  to  the  Jews,  taught  them  that  they 
Avere  not  forgiven  their  sins  by  faith,  but  by  an  act 
of  faith,  by  a  believing  immersion  into  the  Lord  Jesus. 
That  this  may  appear  evident  to  all,  we  shall  examine 
his  Pentecostian  address  and  his  Pentecostian  hearers." 

"  Peter,  now  holding  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of 
Jesus,  and  speaking  under  the  commission  for  con- 
verting the  world,  and  by  the  authority  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  .  .  .  may  be  expected  to  speak  the  truth, 
the  whole  truth,  plainly  and  intelligibly  to  his  breth- 
ren, the  Jews.  He  had  that  day  declared  the  gos- 
pel facts,  and  proven  the  resurrection  and  ascension 
of  Jesus  to  the  conviction  of  thousands.  They  be- 
lieved and  repented.  .  .  .  Being  full  of  this  faith, 
they  inquired  of  Peter  and  other  apostles  what  they 

*  Note.— The  writer  is  indebted  to  Dr.  G,  W.  Hughey'a 
work  on  "Baptismal  Remission"  for  this  compilation. 


THE  CENTRAL  IDEA. 


29 


ought  to  do  to  obtain  remission  of  sins.  They  were 
informed  that,  though  they  now  believed  and  re- 
pented, they  were  not  pardoned,  but  must  '  reform 
and  be  immersed  for  the  remission  of  sins.'  .  .  .  This 
act  of  faith  was  presented  as  that  act  by  which  a 
change  in  their  state  could  be  effected ;  or,  in  other 
Avords,  by  which  alone  they  could  be  pardoned/' 
Again,  page  197,  he  says:  All  these  testimonies  con- 
cur with  each  other  in  presenting  the  act  of  faitli — 
Christian  immersion  frequently  called  conversion — as 
that  act  inseparably  connected  with  the  remission  of 
sins."  Again,  page  208 :  "  Remission  of  sins,  or 
coming  into  a  state  of  acceptance,  being  one  of  the 
present  immunities  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  can  not 
be  Scripturally  enjoyed  by  any  person  before  im- 
mersion. 

These  quotations  we  might  multiply  to  weariness, 
were  it  necessary.  But  wherein  consists  the  difference 
between  the  averments  of  Mr.  Campbell  and  the 
canons  of  Rome?  Both  affirm  that  baptism  is  neces- 
sary to  the  pardon  of  sin.  Both  lay  stress  on  the 
"  act  perfor7ned/'  only  Rome  is  the  more  liberal  of 
the  two.  With  Rome  a  little  water  will  do,  but 
Campbellism  demands  enough  for  an  immersion,  and 
an  immersion  at  whatever  cost.  Both  claim  that  St. 
Peter  received  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
and  both  claim  that  Peter's  successors  use  these  keys 
in  admitting  persons  into  this  kingdom.  There  is  some 
little  difference  between  them  as  to  just  who  are  the 


30 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


successors  of  St.  Peter,  but  this  difference  is  Dot  fun- 
damental.   They  agree  in  the  fundamentals. 

It  ^vill  be  seen  also,  by  the  parallels  above  given, 
that  this  doctrine  is  but  a  slight  modification  of  the 
old  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration.  It  is  true 
that  this  charge  is  resented  "vvith  considerable  vehe- 
mence by  the  advocates  of  this  doctrine,  yet,  as  in  the 
case  before  given,  it  is  very  difficult  to  make  a  dis- 
tinction. The  two  parties  use  the  same  passages  in 
identically  the  same  way.  Dr.  Pusey,  of  the  Anglican 
High  Church  party,  may  be  regarded  as  very  good 
authority  as  to  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration. 
In  Holy  Baptism,'^  page  48,  he  comments  on  Titus 
iii,  5:  ^*^The  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,^  i.  e.,  a  baptizing  accompanied  by 
or  conveying  a  reproduction,  a  second  birth,  a  resto- 
ration of  our  decayed  nature  by  the  new  and  first  life, 
imparted  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  apostle  has  been 
directed  both  to  limit  the  imparting  of  the  inward 
grace  by  the  mention  of  the  outward  washing,  and  to 
raise  our  conceptions  of  the  greatness  of  this  second 
birth  by  the  addition  of  the  spiritual  grace.  The  gift, 
moreover,  is  the  gift  of  God  in  and  by  baptism  :  every 
thing  but  God's  mercy  is  excluded — ^not  by  works  of 
righteousness  which  we  have  done ' — they  only  who 
believe  will  come  to  the  ^  washing  of  regeneration  yet 
not  belief  alone,  but  God,  ^  according  to  his  mercy, 
saves  them  by  the  washing  of  regeneration  by  faith 
are  we  saved,  not  by  works ;  and  by  baptism  we  are 


THE  CENTRAL  IDEA. 


31 


saved,  not  by  faith  only,  for  so  God  hath  said ;  not 
the  necessity  of  preparation,  but  its  efficiency  in 
itself  is  excluded ;  baptism  comes  neither  as  '  grace  of 
congruity,'  nor  as  an  outward  seal  of  benefits  before 
conveyed ;  we  are  saved  neither  by  faith  only,  nor  by 
baptism  only,  but  faith  bringing  us  to  baptism,  and 
by  baptism  God  saves  us.'^ 

Put  beside  this  some  utterances  of  Campbell  :* 
^'  Wherever  water,  faith,  and  the  name  of  the  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  are,  there  will  be  found  the 
efficacy  of  the  blood  of  Jesus.  Yes,  as  God  first  gave 
the  efficacy  of  water  to  blood,  he  has  now  given  the 
efficacy  of  blood  to  water.  This,  as  was  said,  is  figura- 
tive ;  but  it  is  not  a  figure  which  misleads,  for  the 
meaning  is  given  without  a  figure,  viz.,  immersion  for 
the  remission  of  sins.  And  to  him  that  made  the 
washing  of  clay  from  the  eyes  the  washing  away  of 
blindness,  it  is  competent  to  make  the  immersion  of 
the  body  in  water  efficacious  to  the  washing  away  of 
sin  fro7n  the  conscience.^'  Again  :  f  "  Being  born  of 
water  in  the  Savior's  style,  and  the  bath  of  regenera- 
tion in  the  apostle's  style,  in  the  judgment  of  all  writers 
and  critics  of  eminence,  refer  to  one  and  the  same  act, 
viz..  Christian  baptism.  Hence  it  came  to  pass  that 
all  the  ancients  used  the  word  regeneration  as  synony- 
mous with  immersion. Similar  quotations  might  be 
produced  in  numbers,  showing  that  the  difference 


*"  Christian  System,"  p.  215.  t/d. 


32 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


between  the  advocates  of  baptismal  regeneration  and 
those  of  baptismal  remission  is  more  a  difference  of 
words  than  of  real  principles.  Campbell  and  his  fol- 
lowers quote  without  hesitation  the  writings  of  the 
advocates  of  baptismal  regeneration  as  supporting  their 
view,  yet  when  charged  with  advocating  baptismal 
regeneration  they  become  very  indignant,  and  accuse 
"  the  sects/' as  they  style  other  Christian  denomina- 
tions, of  traducing  them.  A.  Campbell,  in  a  foot-note 
on  page  272  of  the  Christian  System,'^  attempts  to 
meet  the  charge  and  explain  the  difference.  The  ex- 
planation amounts  to  this:  The  advocates  of  baptismal 
regeneration  contend  for  a  regeneration  effected  by 
baptism  alone,  while  Campbell  contends  that  baptism 
is  but  the  last  step  in  the  process.  The  so-called  dif- 
ference upon  which  this  explanation  is  grounded  does 
not  exist  in  fact.  In  the  case  of  adults  the  advo- 
cates of  baptismal  regeneration  require,  as  antecedent 
conditions,  faith  and  repentance;  also,  belief  in  the 
presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  imparted  in  the  act  of 
baptism.  In  the  case  of  infants,  the  difference  may 
exist ;  but  the  doctrine  does  not  by  any  means  apply 
to  infants  alone. 

Tliis  doctrine  also  teaches  justification  by  works. 
This  is  also  disavowed  by  them,  but  with  no  better 
reason  than  the  two  former.  Baptism  they  are  always 
ready  to  set  forth  as  a  coimnand,  and  the  observance 
of  it  as  obedience;  and  when  their  theory  of  doctrine  is 
met  by  the  repeated  declaration  of  the  apostle  Paul — 


THE  CENTRAL  IDEA, 


33 


viz.,  that  justification  is  by  faith  without  works/' 
aud  "  without  the  deeds  of  the  law  " — they  are  ever 
ready  to  quote  St.  James  to  the  contrary,  leaving  a 
positive  conflict  between  these  apostles,  when  a  rea- 
sonable method  of  interpretation  would  show  complete 
agreement. 

A.  Campbell,  in  treating  of  the  justification  of  sin- 
ners, says :  *  "  As  an  act  of  favor  it  is  done  by  the 
blood  of  Jesus,  as  the  rigiitful  and  efficient  cause ;  by 
the  faith  as  the  instrumental  cause;  by  the  name  of 
Jesus  the  Lord  as  the  immediate  cause;  and  by 
works  as  the  demonstrative  and  conclusive  cause. 
In  what  sense  this  jargon  of  supposed  distinctions  ex- 
plains the  justification  of  the  sinner,  it  is  difficult  for 
any  one  not  looking  at  the  Scriptures  through  a  theory 
to  understand.  The  question  still  remains  for  expla- 
nation. How  is  the  sinner  justified  by  works  of  right- 
eousness, and  not  by  works  of  righteousness,  at  one  and 
the  same  time?  Until  this  question  is  answered,  the 
charge  of  teaching  a  doctrine  of  justification  by  works 
must  stand  unimpeached. 

It  is  at  once  apparent  to  the  student  of  Church 
history  that  this  scheme  of  doctrine  is  in  square  antag- 
onism, in  this  respect,  to  the  fundamental  doctrine  of 
the  Reformation,  and  in  harmony  with  Rome  on  the 
ground  of  justification.  The  watch-cry  of  the  Refor- 
mation was,  Sola  fides  justificat — faith  alone  justifies; 


*"  Christian  Syttem,"  p.  183. 


34 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


while  Rome  shouted  back,  not  faith  alone,  but  works 
also.  Hagenbach  (History  of  Doctriues,  Vol.  II, 
page  281)  says:  *^Both  Roman  Catholics  and  Protest- 
ants ascribe  to  faith  a  justifying  power  in  the  case 
of  the  sinner ;  but  there  was  this  great  ditference  be- 
tween them,  that  the  former  maintained  that,  in  ad- 
dition to  faith,  good  works  are  a  necessary  condition 
of  salvation,  and  ascribe  to  them  a  certain  degree 
of  meritoriousness ;  while  the  latter  adhere  rigidly 
to  the  proposition, '  Sola  fides  justificatJ  "  If  this  emi- 
nent German  ecclesiastical  historian  had  sought  to 
define  the  doctrinal  conflict  between  Campbell  ism  and 
other  evangelical  denomintitious,  he  could  not  have 
found  better  words  to  distinguish  them  than  the  words 
given  above.  Campbellism  always  defines  baptism  as 
a  necessary  condition  to  the  salvation  of  the  sinner, 
and  they  class  it  with  the  "works"  spoken  of  by  St. 
James  ii,  24.  It  is  throughout  a  system  of  salvation 
by  works  and  nothing  else ;  and  while  they  do  not  as- 
cribe to  works  meritoriousness,  yet  they  make  them 
essential  antecedently  to  justification.  And  if  they  are 
"  good  works,"  merit  can  not  be  denied  to  them  any 
more  before  than  after  justification.  God  ascribes 
merit  to  all  good  works ;  but  good  works  are  wrought 
in  faith,  and  faith  justifies  ;  good  works,  therefore,  be- 
long to  a  justified  state,  and  not  antecedently  to  it. 


DIALECT  OF, 


35 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  DIALECT  OF  CAMPBELUSM. 

This  system  bas  a  doctrinal  dialect  peculiarly  its 
own,  and  by  wbicb  it  may  be  readily  recognized  any- 
where. This  dialect  is  made  up  of  Scripture  phrase- 
ology, used  in  a  certain  dogmatic  sense,  w^hich  dis- 
tinctively indexes  the  characteristic  interpretation  of 
this  school  in  dealing  with  certain  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture. This  its  author  calls  purity  of  speech/' 
"  speaking  of  Bible  things  by  Bible  words.''  *  But  it  is 
plain  to  the  unsophisticated  that  this  Bible  terminology 
is  given  a  meaning  diiFerenl  from  that  attached  to  it 
by  others.  Bible  terms  may  be  used  in  a  certain  ar- 
bitrary sense  that  is  not  legitimately  to  be  attached  to 
them,  and  thereby  be  made  to  propagate  error  of  the 
most  destructive  consequences  and  character. 

In  this  Scriptural  phraseology,  used  in  this  pecu- 
liar sense,  we  have  another  forceful  illustration  of  the 
unbounded  influence  of  this  man  Campbell;  for  the 
dialect  is  his  own  style  of  speech  beyond  all  question. 
"We  doubt  it  possible  in  the  history  of  the  entire 
Church  of  the  Christian  centuries  to  parallel  this  with 
another  example  exactly  similar.  And  yet  his  follow- 
ing affect  to  believe  that  they,  in  their  system,  are 


♦"Christian  System,"  p.  125. 


3G 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLTSM. 


independent  of  all  human  leadership.  Their  creed  is 
the  Bible,  and  their  doctrines  are  infallible  deductions 
from  the  Scriptures.  This  must  be  so,  else  their 
claim  to  take  the  Scriptures  as  their  sole  guide  falls 
to  the  ground,  and  they  only  take  their  interpretation 
of  the  Scriptures,  which  is  just  what  all  other  Chris- 
tians do,  and  no  more. 

Let  us  consider  some  of  this  characteristic  termi- 
nology. For  example,  *^  reign  of  heaven, as  a  trans- 
lation of  the  phrase  kingdom  of  heaven,"  first  pro- 
posed by  Mr.  Campbell,  is  now  with  great  unanimity 
used  by  the  doctrinal  teachers  of  this  system.  Under 
this  form  of  translation  they  usually  follow  Mr. 
Campbell's  discussion  of  it,  under  the  heads  of 
Xame,''  Constitution,"  "  King,"  Subjects,'' 
^'  Laws,"  Territory."  An  entirely  fanciful  treat- 
ment, made  use  of  to  make  it  co-ordinate  with  a  pre- 
conceived system  of  doctrine.  But  of  this  more  sub- 
sequently. 

According  to  this  dialect  the  unbaptized  are  styled 
aliens,"  while  the  baptized,  by  parity  of  reasoning, 
however  backslidden,  however  besotted  in  sin,  are 
naturalized  citizens,  and  may  be  saved  by  repentance, 
faith,  and  prayer,  at  any  time,  while  the  "  alien  "  can 
not  be  saved  without  baptism.  The  Scriptures  do  use 
the  term  aliens,"  but  never  to  signify  the  unbap- 
tized. In  Eph.  ii,  12,  and  iv,  18;  the  term  undoubt- 
edly refers  to  the  Gentiles  in  their  condition  anterior 
to  the  publication  of  the  gospel,  and  as  compared  with 


DIALECT  OF. 


37 


Israel  under  the  Levitical  dispensation.  One  thing, 
however,  is  certain.  The  Scriptures  nowhere  recog- 
nize the  unbaptized  person  as  an  alien  simply  because 
he  is  unbaptized. 

"In  Christ/'  is  another  Scriptural  phrase  that  is 
given  in  this  system  a  peculiar  signification.  A. 
Campbell  says:*  ^'JVhen  are  persons  in  Christ?  I 
choose  this  phrase  in  accommodation  to  the  familiar 
style  of  this  day.  No  person  is  in  a  house,  or  in  a 
ship,  or  in  a  state,  or  in  a  kingdom,  but  he  that  is 
gone,  or  is  introduced  into  a  state,  into  a  kingdom ;  so 
no  person  is  in  Christ  but  he  w^ho  has  been  intro- 
duced into  Christ.  .  .  .  But  the  phrase,  into 
Christ,  is  always  connected  with  conversion,  regenera- 
tion, immersion,  or  putting  on  Christ.  Before  we  are 
justified  in  Christ,  live  in  Christ,  or  fall  asleep  in 
Christ,  we  must  come,  be  introduced  or  immersed  into 
Christ."  What  can  teach  more  explicitly  than  this 
that  baptism  is  that  Avhich  puts  the  sinner  into  Christ, 
and  that  the  baptized  state  is  the  state  of  being  "  in 
Christ?"  An  interpretation  that  contains  a  whole 
brood  of  destructive  fallacies. 

It  baptism  puts  the  sinner  into  Christ,  then  all 
who  are  baptized  are  in  Christ,  whatever  may  be  their 
present  morals.  If  immorality  will  put  the  baptized 
person  out  of  Christ,  then  this  Avhole  theory  falls  to  the 
ground.    If  it  does  not,  then  the  backslider  is  sure 


Christian  System,"  pp.  188-189. 


38 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


of  final  salvation;  for,  according  to  Rom.  viii,  38,  39, 
Nothing  can  separate  us  from  tlie  love  of  God, 
Avhich  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord;"  and  2  Cor.  v,  17: 
If  any  man  be  in  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature.^'  It 
docs  not  help  the  matter  at  all  to  say,  "  We  require 
sincere  repentance  and  faith  in  order  to  baptism;"  for 
these  qualities  may  have  existed,  and  the  individual 
be  now  "in  the  gall  of  bitterness  and  bond  of  in- 
iquity." He  is  either  in  Christ  or  out  of  Christ.  If 
in  Christ,  he  is  safe;  if  out  of  Christ,  how  does  he 
now  get  into  Christ?  By  baptism?  If  so,  theu  con- 
stant re-baptism  will  be  required.  If  not  now  by 
baptism,  then  baptism  does  not  put  all  sinners  into 
Christ.  To  this  absurdity  does  this  misapplication 
of  the  Scriptures  inevitably  lead.  The  whole  theory 
is  fallacious.  Water  baptism  is  not  baptism  into 
Christ,  but  baptism  into  the  name  of  Christ;  that  is, 
into  a  profession  of  his  name  for  the  remission  of  sins. 
Baptism  into  Christ  is  entirely  spiritual,  and  does  not 
result  in  this  congeries  of  absurdities. 

"Obedience  of  faith,"  and  "obeying  the  gospel," 
are  choice  phrases  in  the  dialect  of  this  system.  They 
mean,  as  used  by  them,  but  one  thing,  namely,  bap- 
tism. As,  in  the  golden  age  of  the  Roman  empire, 
all  roads  were  said  to  lead  to  Rome,  so,  according  to 
these  teachers,  all  routes  of  Scripture  exegesis  inev- 
itably lead  to  baptism.  And  yet  there  is  not  one  sin- 
gle passage  that  either  directly  or  inferentially  refers 
to  baptism  as  "  the  obedience  of  faith,"  or  "  obeying 


DIALECT  OF. 


39 


the  gospel.'^  This  is  a  very  pertinent  ilkistration  of 
the  persistency  of  preconceived  opinions  in  causing 
individuals  to  see  the  Scriptures  through  the  medium 
of  a  theory.  The  obedience  of  faith  is  faith  itself;  or, 
in  other  words,  faith  is  obedience  to  the  command  to 
believe  in,  on,  or  upon  Christ.  In  Rom.  x,  16,  we 
have  "obeying  the  gospel defined:  "But  they  have 
not  all  obeyed  the  gospel.  For  Esaias  saith,  Lord,  Avho 
hath  believed  our  report?'^  In  what  respect  did  they 
not  "  obey  the  gospel?''  Plainly  in  not  believing  the 
"  report ''  of  the  prophets.  "  Obedience  to  the  faith," 
in  Rom.  i,  5,  is  obedience  to  the  whole  system  of  faith. 
Yet  despite  these  plain  and  obvious  interpretations  of 
these  phrases,  they  have  become  a  veritable  doctrinal 
shibboleth  of  the  followers  of  Campbell,  and  they  in- 
vite sinners  to  believe,  repent,  and  confess  Christ,  and 
obey  the  gospel. 

The  word  "confession''  has  also  a  peculiar  sig- 
nificance attached  to  it  in  this  dialect.  With  them  it 
means  the  oral  confession  that  "  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
Son  of  God."  Alexander  Campbell  says :  *  "  The 
only  apostolic  and  divine  confession  of  faith  Avhich 
God  the  Father  of  all  the  Church,  and  that  upon 
which  Jesus  himself  said  he  would  build  it,  is  the 
sublime  and  supreme  proposition.  That  Jesus  of  Naz- 
areth is  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of  the  living  God.  This 
is  the  peculiarity  of  the  Christian  system,  its  specific 


*  "  Christian  System,"  p.  58. 


40 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


attribute. This,  then,  is  confession,  according  to  their 
teaching,  and  is  one  of  the  requisites  of  baptism,  and 
one  of  the  works  of  righteousness.  That  such  an  oral 
confession  was  ever  required  by  the  apostles  as  a  pre- 
requisite to  baptism,  has  not  one  particle  of  proof  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  or  their  Epistles.  The  only 
passage  they  will  attempt  to  cite  is  Acts  viii,  37,  which  is 
rejected  as  wanting  in  genuineness  by  the  Revised  Ver- 
sion. Critical  scholars  have  for  a  long  time  with  perfect 
unanimity  held  its  spuriousness,  an  addition  that  crept 
into  some  manuscripts  from  an  ecclesiastical  formula. 

The  words  bfioAoyicoixui^  6/ioAoycaf\re  rendered  indif- 
ferently confesSj  profesSj  confessioiiy  jjrofession,  and  refer 
to  faith  or  belief  in  almost  every  instance,  without  any 
formulated  statement  or  oral  declaration.  Confession 
"  with  the  mouth  "  is  only  spoken  of  in  Rom.  x,  9,  10, 
and  it  requires  an  unlimited  stretch  of  the  imagination 
to  put  into  the  words,  as  here  used,  the  formal  con- 
fession that  Mr.  Campbell  and  his  following  require. 

Again,  ^^the  action  of  baptism"  is  a  prominent 
technic  in  this  dialect.  Mr.  Campbell,  in  "The  Chris- 
tian System,"  devotes  a  chapter  to  this  subject.  By 
this  word  "action,"  it  is  sought  to  maintain  the  posi- 
tion that  the  word  in  the  original  defines  a  specific 
action,  rather  than  a  result  to  be  brought  about  by 
different  acts  or  influences.  What  is  the  "action  of 
baptism"  as  defined  by  their  mode  of  procedure? 
Whose  action  is  it?  It  is  evidently  the  action  of  the 
administrator  after  the  immersion  is  partially  secured 


DIALECT  OF. 


41 


by  the  action  of  the  subject.  At  this  juncture  the 
individual,  passive  in  the  hands  of  the  administrator, 
is  actively  dipped  by  liim,  or  immersed  and  emersed  by 
him.  The  object  is  not  by  this  description  to  bur- 
lesque their  mode  of  procedure  in  immersion,  so-called, 
but  to  bring  out  clearly  to  logical  discrimination  this 
"action"  idea.  Baptism  is  the  passive  receiving  of 
water,  administered  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost,  as  a  Christian  rite ;  and  the  active 
party,  so  far  as  physical  action  is  concerned,  is  the 
administrator.  And  when  Mr.  Campbell  talks  oi 
baptism  as  "an  action  commanded  to  be  done,"*  he 
talks  of  a  command  that  never  was  given.  The  com- 
mand to  baptize  was  only  given  to  apostles  and  ad- 
ministrators— the  "action"  was  to  be  their  action. 
The  subjects  of  baptism  were  commanded  to  be  bap- 
tized— i.  e.,  receive  baptism — and  this  whole  theory  of 
"action,"  and  talk  about  the  "action  of  baptism,"  is  a 
pertinent  illustration  of  that  want  of"  purity  of  speech  " 
that  Campbell  so  unsparingly  condemns  in  others. 

With  the  same  limited  meaning  the  term  "gospel" 
is  used.  With  them  it  means,  preaching  baptism  in 
order  to  the  remission  of  sins.  Whatever  of  repent- 
ance, faith,  love,  or  duty  a  sermon  may  have  in  it,  if 
it  have  not  baptism  as  a  condition  to  pardon,  it  is  not 
the  gospel. t  In  this  case  it  is  true,  as  in  the  case  of 
"  obedience "  before  spoken  of,  that  there  is  not  a 

Christian  System,"  p.  55. 
tSee  "  Memoirs  of  A.  Campbell,"  pp.  208-218,  224,  229. 
4 


42 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPELLISM. 


single  passage  that  refers  to  baptism  by  water  as  any 
part  of  the  gospel.  The  fact  is,  the  gospel  was 
preached  during  Christ's  stay  here  upon  the  earth, 
and  that  was  before  the  institution  of  Christian  bap- 
tism according  to  Mr.  Campbell.  Again,  the  gospel 
was  preached  unto  Abraham,  Gal.  iii,  8  :  And  the 
Scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  would  justify  the  hea- 
then through  faith,  preached  before  the  gospel  unto 
Abraham,  saying,  In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed." 
So  also  was  it  preached  in  the  wilderness,  Heb.  iv,  2  : 
"  For  unto  us  was  the  gospel  preached  as  well  as  unto 
them.''  Certainly,  in  this  gospel  as  well  as  in  that 
preached  by  Christ  unto  the  poor ''  (Luke  vii,  22), 
there  was  no  water  baptism  as  a  condition  to  its  bene- 
fits. Again,  Paul  especially  disclaims  baptism  as  a 
part  of  the  gospel  of  remission,  1  Cor.  i,  17:  "For 
Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to  preach  the  gos- 
pel." What  is  here  set  by  antithesis  to  the  gospel? 
Water  baptism.  It  is,  therefore,  no  part  of  the  gospel 
of  salvation  to  sinners.  It  belongs  to  those  who  are 
saved,  as  a  symbol  of  the  grace  whereby  they  were 
saved;  to  wit,  spiritual  baptism,  which  is  a  fundamen- 
tal part  of  the  gospel  of  Christ,  for  it  is  purification 
from  sin.  1  Cor.  xii,  13 :  By  one  Spirit  are  we  all 
baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gen- 
tiles, whether  we  be  bond  or  free,  and  have  all  been 
made  to  drink  into  one  spirit." 

"The  loaf  in  the  house  of  the  Lord  "  is  a  some- 
what unique  and  original  method  of  presenting  the 


DIALECT  OF. 


43 


communion  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  This  idea  of  "one 
loaf  *  is  founded  on  a  fanciful  rendering  of  the  Greek 
dpTO^,  in  1  Cor.  x,  16,  17 — a  word  which,  in  the  great 
majority  of  instances,  is  translated  bread.  But  Mr. 
Campbell  conceived  that,  at  the  ancient  or  primitive 
communion  occasions,  each  member  broke  a  piece  from 
the  common  "  loaf  So  he  translates  dpzo^  "  loaf  to 
accord  with  this  idea.  Justin  Martyr,  in  his  first  Apol- 
ogy (ch.  67,  A.  D.  140)  gives  an  account  of  the  Chris- 
tian assemblies,  in  which  he  says  of  the  elements  of 
the  Eucharist :  "  There  is  a  distribution  to  each.''  Of 
course,  this  is  a  matter  of  but  minor  moment ;  but  it 
serves  to  point  the  illustration  of  Campbell's  doc- 
trinal dialect,  and  the  unparalleled  authority  his  opin- 
ions held,  and  do  now  hold,  over  his  followers. 


*"  Christian  System,"  pp.  303-331. 


44 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  THEORY  OF  rOSITIVE  INSTITUTES. 

Alexander  Campbell  and  his  followers,  in 
order  to  make  their  scheme  of  doctrine  co-ordinate 
with  unity  of  purpose  and  plan  in  the  divine  economy 
under  all  dispensations  and  in  all  ages,  have  pro- 
mulgated the  theory  of  salvation  by  obedience  to 
positive  institutes  or  precepts.  The  theory  in  brief 
is  this  :  Under  each  dispensation  God  enjoined  some 
positive  act  of  obedience  as  the  final  condition  upon 
which  remission  of  sin  was  procured  by  the  penitent 
believer.  But  Ave  prefer  to  let  Mr.  Camj^bell  him- 
self set  forth  his  theory  of  doctrine.  He  says  :* 
"  From  Abel  to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  trans- 
gressors obtained  remission  of  sins  at  the  altar 
through  priests  and  sin-offerings;  but  it  was  an  im- 
perfect remission  as  respected  the  conscience.  '  For 
the  law/  says  Paul  (more  perfect  in  this  respect  than 
the  preceding  economy),  '  containing  a  shadow  only 
of  the  good  things  to  come,  and  not  the  very  image 
of  these  things,  never  can,  v.ith  the  same  sacrifices 
which  they  oflfered  yearly,  forever  make  those  who 


Christian  System,"  p.  179. 


THEORY  OF  POSITIVE  INSTITUTES. 


45 


come  to  them  perfect.  Since  being  offered^  would 
they  not  have  ceased?  because  the  worshipers,  being 
once  purified,  should  have  no  longer  conscience  of 
sins/  ^'  This  passage  is  remarkable,  especially  for 
the  assumption  that  "  transgressors  obtained  remission 
at  the  altar  through  priests  and  sin-offerings  under 
pre-Christian  dispensations.  There  is  not  one  particle 
of  proof  offered  for  it.  In  fact,  there  is  not  one  single 
passage  in  the  Old  Testament  that  enjoins  the  offering 
of  a  sacrifice  as  a  condition  to  the  pardon  of  sin. 
Sacrifices  were  generally  offered  by  priests;  hence 
the  only  thing  that  could  be  properly  the  act  of  the  in- 
dividual would  be  the  bringing  of  the  sacrifice.  Again, 
sacrifices  were  offered  for  families,  or  for  the  people  at 
large;  therefore  if  pardon  of  sin  were  obtained  through 
them,  it  was,  in  the  vast  majority  of  instances,  pred- 
icated on  the  mental  act,  the  state  of  the  mind  or 
heart  of  the  worshiper,  which  must  be  a  state  of  re- 
pentance and  faith.  No ;  this  is  a  lame  attempt  to 
offer  support  to  this  theory  of  positive  institutes  as 
being  required  in  all  ages  in  order  to  the  remission 
of  sin.  The  Old  Testament  nowhere  sustains  it. 
Balvation  in  numerous  instances  is  predicated  on 
faith,  trust,  repentance,  prayer,  calling  unto  the  Lord, 
and  these  are  each  and  all  mental  acts. 

In  a  discussion  with  a  minister  of  this  denomina- 
tion, where  the  utterances  of  the  psalmists  and  proph- 
ets with  reference  to  prayer  for  the  remission  of  sins 
was  cited  by  the  writer,  the  attempt  was  made  to 


46 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


break  the  force  of  these  proofs  by  saying  faith  and 
prayer,  and  faith  and  calling  upon  God,  is  not  faith 
alone,  as  the  Methodist  Discipline,  in  Article  IX  of 
the  Articles  of  Religion,  teaches.  To  this  the  reply  was 
made  that  it  was  the  faith  in  the  prayer,  and  not  the 
faith  and  the  prayer,  that  brought  the  remission  of 
sin.  Wherever  the  heart  exercised  an  implicit  faith 
in  God,  there,  at  that  very  moment,  salvation  was 
realized.  Prayer,  or  calling  upon  God  for  pardon  of 
sin,  is  proof  of  the  fact  that  pardon  was  not  suspended 
on  obedience  to  positive  institutes,  and  proof  that  it 
was  suspended  upon  a  state  of  mind  and  heart,  which 
was  essential  in  prayer,  without  which  there  could  be 
no  genuine  prayer.  We  will  give  a  couple  of  examples 
out  of  the  Old  Testament  out  of  the  large  number 
that  might  be  given:  Psalms  Ixxxvi,  5:  "For  thou 
Lord,  art  good  and  ready  to  forgive ;  and  plenteous 
in  mercy  to  all  them  that  call  upon  thee.'^  Isa.  Iv, 
6,  7 :  "  Seek  ye  the  Lord  while  he  may  be  found, 
call  upon  him  while  he  is  near.  Let  the  wicked  for- 
sake his  way,  and  the  unrighteous  man  his  thoughts: 
and  let  hiin  return  unto  the  Lord,  and  he  will  have 
mercy  upon  him ;  and  to  our  God,  for  he  will  abun- 
dantly pardon."  These  explicitly  set  forth  the  con- 
dition upon  which  pardon  was  obtained  by  sinners 
under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation. 

Sometimes  the  trespass  offerings  enjoined  in 
Leviticus,  chapters  iv  and  v,  are  cited  as  examples 
of  sins  forgiven  upon  the  offering  of  sacrifices,  but 


THEORJ:  OF^POSITIVL  INSTITUTES.  47 


the  unbiased  reader  will  see  that  these  sins  of  igno- 
rance, that  are  atoned  for  by  certain  sacrifices,  are 
not  the  sins  from  which  sinners  generally  need  to  be 
justified.  The  Levitical  law  nowhere  offers  any  sup- 
port to  this  theory,  and  it  must  be  badly  pressed  for 
a  foundation  to  stand  upon  through  the  fifteen  hun- 
dred years  of  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  to  turn  to  the 
trespass  offerings  as  an  example  of  positive  institutes 
as  conditions  to  the  remission  of  sin. 

Again,  this  theory  seeks  to  present  a  parallel  be- 
tween the  fall  of  our  first  parents  and  the  recovery 
of  the  sinner.  Mr.  Braden,  in  his  debate  with  Dr. 
G.  W.  Hughey,  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
states  the  theory  in  full,  of  which  we  will  quote 
enough  to  bring  out  in  clear  view  this  particular 
phase  of  their  doctrinal  teaching.    He  says: 

*"Let  us  now  analyze  the  successive  steps  — that 
is,  of  the  fall — "  and  learn  when  she  became  guilty  in 
the  sight  of  God. 

"1.  There  was  a  preacher  of  falsehood  and  diso- 
bedience ;  falsehood  and  disobedience  were  preached 
and  heard ;  but  she  had  not  become  guilty,  she  had 
not  fallen. 

2.  Next  she  disbelieved  God  in  believing  the 
tempter ;  but  she  had  not  yet  fallen.  Suppose  she  had 
said  to  him,  '  What  you  say  is  reasonable — indeed  I 
believe  it — but  God  has  said,    You  shall  not  eat  of  it,'' 


*  "Hughey  and  Braden  Debate,"  pp.  189,  190. 


48 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


and  I  will  obey  God/  would  she  have  fallen  ?  Cer- 
taiuly  not.  It  would  have  been  an  error  of  the  judg- 
ment, but  not  a  sin  of  the  heart.    .    .  . 

"3.  She  desired  the  result  of  disobedience  and  be- 
came dissatisfied  with  the  reward  of  obedience ;  but 
she  had  not  yet  fallen  or  become  guilty.  Suppose  she 
had  said  to  the  tempter,  ^  Sir,  I  feel  a  strong  desire  to 
eat  such  pleasant  fruit,  and  to  become  as  God,  know- 
ing good  and  evil ;  I  do  n't  see  w^hy  I  am  restricted 
in  this  way ;  but  God  has  said,  "  You  shall  not  eat  of 
it,"  and  I  will  not  eat,'  would  she  have  fallen?  Cer- 
tainly not. 

'^4.  She  next  arrayed  the  best  part  of  her  nature 
not  already  in  rebellion  against  God,  in  opposition  to 
his  law.  She  resolved  to  disobey,  and  as  the  act  and 
volition  were  in  her  case  simultaneous  nearly, — the 
Bible  makes  them  so,  and  says,  '  She  ate,  and  her  eyes 
were  opened  and  she  was  ashamed,'  or  guilty ;  *  then 
she  fell,  and  not  till  then.'" 

Xow,  as  to  the  recovery  of  the  sinner,  we  have  this : 

"1.  The  gospel  must  be  preached,  and  man  must 
hear  it.    He  is  not  yet  pardoned. 

2.  He  must  believe  the  gospel,  or  have  faith. 
He  is  not  yet  returned;  he  is  not  yet  pardoned. 

"  3.  Man  must  repent,  he  must  cease  to  love  sin.  .  .  . 
He  is  not  yet  pardoned.  .  .  . 

^^4.  Since  man  has  been  living  in  rebellion  against 
God,  he  must  now  confess  Christ  before  men,  as  did 
the  eunuch  to  Philip;  but  he  is  not  yet  saved. 


THEORY  OF  POSITIVE  INSTITUTES. 


49 


"5.  He  must  next  obey  the  positive  command  of 
God,  or  submit  his  will  to  the  will  of  God  in  hi? 
positive  ordinance — baptism/' 

Let  us  look  at  the  first  side  of  this  attempted  par- 
allel, and  see  how  many  absurdities  are  compressed  in 
the  compass  of  its  assumptions.  Acccording  to  the 
second  item  in  the  category,  Eve  could  believe  the 
tempter  and  disbelieve  God,  and  yet  have  no  sin  in 
her  heart.  To  make  God  willfully  a  liar,  is  more 
than  "an  error  of  judgment."  AVe  are  told  that  in 
addition  to  this  '^she  desired  the  result  of  disobe- 
dience," and  yet  was  not  fallen.  A  monstrous  doctrine, 
squarely  in  contradiction  to  the  teaching  of  Jesus, 
Matt,  v,  21-27,  where  hatred  and  lust  are  made  murder 
and  adultery.  Desire  sin  in  the  heart,  and  yet  not  sin  ! 
How  completely  in  conflict  with  all  our  ideas  of  the 
nature  of  sin,  that  there  must  be  the  overt  act  before 
there  can  be  sin !  The  fact  is,  sin  existed  before  the 
act  Avas  put  forth,  and  had  something  occurred  to 
prevent  the  act,  there  would  not  have  been  any  less 
of  sin  in  the  heart.  Sin  existed  in  Eve  when  she  dis- 
believed God's  word,  and  doubted  his  goodness  in  the 
prohibition  given.  And  her  recovery  from  the  guilt 
of  sin  was  secured  by  her  heart-faith  in  the  divine 
faithfulness  and  goodness  in  the  provision  to  be  made 
for  the  forgiveness  of  sin.  But  were  it  conceded  that 
the  first  sin  consisted  only  in  an  overt  act  of  disobe- 
dience, it  does  not  follow  that  the  restoration  shall  be 
through  one  formal  act  of  obedience.    The  restoration 

5 


50 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


must  have  underlying  it  a  principle  from  which  all 
obedience  may  spring,  and  that  principle  is  faith,  or 
heart-obedience,  "  the  obedience  of  faith/' 

Under  the  dispensation  of  the  Baptist,  Campbell 
and  his  followers  teach  that  baptism  became  the  posi- 
tive institute  for  the  remission  of  sin,  and  in  this 
there  was  a  preparation  for  the  Christian  dispensation. 
Braden,  on  the  design  of  baptism,  says:*  ''Our 
fourth  argument  is,  that  John  the  Harbinger  was 
preparing  the  way  for  the  coming  of  Christ ;  baptism 
was  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  in  this  he  prepared 
the  way  for  the  great  law  of  pardon  in  Christ. 
Mark  i,  4:  'John  did  baptize  in  the  wilderness,  and 
preach  the  baptism  of  repentance  for  the  remission 
of  sins.'  Luke  iii,  3:  'John  came  into  all  the  coun- 
try about  Jordan,  preaching  the  baptism  of  repentance 
for  the  remission  of  sins.'  Matt.  iii.  5,  6 :  '  Then 
went  out  to  John  all  Jerusalem  and  Judea,  and  all 
the  region  round  about  Jordan,  and  were  baptized  of 
him  in  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins.'  This  baptism 
was  one  which  could  only  be  administered  to  peni- 
tent believers  of  John's  preaching.  To  all  such  it 
Avas  for  the  remission  of  sins,  for  Matthew  assures  us 
he  required  confession  before  baptism.  Then  followed 
baptism  for  the  remission  of  their  sins." 

Here  we  have  the  last  step  from  the  supposed 
positive  institutes  of  the  patriarchal  and  Mosaic  dis- 
pensation to  the  Christian  dispensation,  and  the  theory 


•  "  Hughey  and  Braden  Debate,"  p.  193. 


THEORY  OF  POSITIVE  INSTITUTES.  51 


is  equally  without  foundation  here.  When  its  un- 
proved assumptions  are  taken  away,  it  stands  out  as  a 
sheer  fabrication.  1.  It  is  sought  to  connect  John's 
baptism  with  remission  of  sins  in  causal  relation;  that 
is,  his  baptism  was  for,  meaning  in  order,  to  remission 
of  sins.  Now,  not  one  passage  that  is  cited  by  Mr. 
Braden,  and  none  other  that  can  be  cited,  connects 
these  two — baptism  and  remission  of  sins — as  ante- 
cedent and  sequent,  cause  and  effect.  One  passage 
will  forever  set  this  matter  at  rest.  Matt.  iii.  11:  ^'1 
indeed  baptize  you  with  water  unto  repentance ;  but 
he  that  cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than  I,  whose 
shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  bear;  he  shall  baptize  you 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire.''  Here  we  have 
baptism  connected  with  repentance  by  the  preposition 
£((;,  the  same  preposition  that,,  according  to  Campbell's 
teaching,  connects  baptism  and  remission  in  Acts  ii. 
38.  John  specifically  states  that  the  baptism  he  per- 
formed was  £c^ — for,  or  in  order  to — repentance.  Now, 
what  is  the  obvious  and  common-sense  interpretation 
of  this  language  ?  This  evidently  :  "  I  indeed  baptize 
you  with  water  into  [a  profession  of]  repentance."  John 
preached  the  baptism  of  repentance  e^c — for  (into) — 
the  remission  of  sin.  The  repentance  was  for — or,  in 
order  to — remission  of  sin;  baptism  was  for — or,  in 
order  to — repentance.  Now,  let  it  be  borne  in  mind 
that  it  was  what  John  preached  that  was  for  remission 
of  sin.  He  preached  a  baptism,  not  a  baptism  of 
water,  but  a  baptism  of  repentance.  Repentance  itself 
baptized  into  the  remission  of  sin.    It  was  a  repent- 


52 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


ance  that  was  crowned  with  faith.  Acts  xix,  4: 
Then  said  Paul,  John  verily  baptized  with  the  bap- 
tism of  repentance,  saying  unto  the  people  that  they 
should  believe  in  him  that  should  come  after,  that  is 
Christ/^  Now,  whatever  construction  w^e  give  to  the 
phrase,  "baptism  of  repentance,^'  it  is  an  unwar- 
ranted liberty  to  construe  it  as  baptism  into  remis- 
sion. It  can  not  be  into  repentance  and  into  remis- 
sion at  the  same  time. 

The  words,  6a7:Ti^(o,  6d7TTi(T/jLa,  and  6'a~rr<T/ioc,  in 
the  original  Greek,  are  by  no  means  limited  in  their 
signification  to  a  submergence  into  something,  or  an 
overwhelming  with  something.  In  fact,  anything 
that  could  bring  about  a  changed  condition  had  the 
power  of  baptism,  as  grief,  calamities,  sufferings,  in- 
iquities, drunkenness,  and  the  like.  Hence  Jesus 
says,  Luke  xii,  50 :  "I  have  a  baptism  to  be  baptized 
with ;  and  how  am  I  straitened  until  it  be  accom- 
plishedSo  also  Matt,  xx,  22,  23,  and  Mark  x, 
38,  39.  Christ's  cup,  baptism.  The  baptism  by  drink- 
ing the  cup  of  suflPering  in  sacrifice  for  sin.  Isa.  xxi, 
4,  in  the  Septuagint,  reads :  "  My  heart  panted,  iniq- 
uity baptizes  me.''  To  these  may  be  added,  from 
classical  and  patristic  sources  in  the  Greek,  an  in- 
definite number  of  like  examples,  as: 

*  Chariton — Baptized  by  desire. 
Plutarch — Baptized  by  worldly  affairs. 
Chrysostoin — Baptized  by  passion. 

*  Dale's  "  Johannic  Baptism^'  pp.  208,  209. 


THEORY  OF  POSITIVE  INSTITUTES. 


53 


Themistius — Baptized  by  grief. 
Josephus — Baptized  by  drunkenness. 
Chrysostora — Baptized  by  poverty. 
Proclus — Baptized  with  wantonness. 
Plotinus — Baptized  with  diseases,  or  with  arts  of  ma- 
gicians. 

Conon — Baptized  with  much  wine. 

Justin  Martyr,  wlio  suffered  martyrdom  about  the  year 
A.  D.  166,  says,  in  his  dialogue  with  Trypho  the  Jew : 
"By  reason  therefore  of  this  laver  of  repentance  and 
knowledge  of  God,  which  has  been  ordained  on  account 
of  the  transgression  of  God's  people,  as  Isaiah  cries,  we 
have  believed,  and  testify  that  that  very  baptism  which  he 
announced  is  alone  able  to  purify  those  who  have  re- 
pented ;  and  this  is  the  water  of  life.  But  the  cisterns 
which  you  have  dug  for  yourselves  are  broken  and  profit- 
less to  you.  For  what  is  the  use  of  that  baptism  that 
cleanseth  the  body  alone.  Baptize  the  soul  from  wrath 
and  from  covetousness,  and  lo,  the  body  is  pure." 

These  Greeks,  speaking  and  using  the  Greek  lan- 
guage as  their  vernacular,  most  certainly  understood 
the  power  of  this  word  6a7:zi^co,  and  these  instances 
show  how  wide  is  the  range  given  to  the  application 
of  the  term.  And  Justin  the  Martyr  shows  how  re- 
pentance will  "  baptize  the  soul  from  wrath,  covetous- 
ness, envy,  hatred.^'  It  was  this  baptism  or  purifica- 
tion by  means  of  repentance  that  John  preached ;  and 
it  was  /or,  in  order  to  represent  this  "  baptism  of  re- 
pentance," that  John  baptized  with  water.  But  let  it 
not  be  forgotten  that  John's  baptism  was  ere,  "unto 


54 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


repentance/^  and  "  repentance  ^'  was  e/c,  "  nnto  remis- 
sion of  sins,"  and  not,  as  Campbell  and  his  followers 
have  it,  "  baptism  with  water  for  remission  of  sins." 
Baptism  -svith  water  and  remission  of  sins  are  not  con- 
nected together  by  the  preposition  s/c,  unto,  into,  or  for, 
and  it  does  violence  to  the  text  so  to  construe  them. 

The  idea  put  forth  by  these  teachers  is,  that  John 
went  throughout  Judea  and  Galilee  preaching  to  the 
people  to  come  and  be  baptized  with  water  by  him; 
while  the  Scriptures  represent  him  as  preaching  re- 
pentance, which  purifies  or  baptizes  the  soul  from  sin ; 
and  having  done  this,  he  administered  a  symbolical 
cleansing  with  water,  which,  in  harmony  with  the  ideas 
in  vogue,  represented  the  repentance. 

Mr.  Braden  says  in  the  quotation  above  given,  that 
"  Matthew  assures  us  he  required  confession  before 
baptism."  AVhere  does  Matthew  assure  us  of  such  a 
relation  as  that  between  confession  and  baptism  ?  I 
suppose  he  thought  he  found  it  in  ch.  iii,  vi  :  "  And 
were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins." 
But  the  very  structure  of  the  language  indicates  that 
the  public  confession  was  made  by  the  baptism.  It 
was  a  baptism  for  confession  of  sin,  and  genuine  con- 
fession of  sin  is  the  public  expression  of  repentance. 
No  language  could  more  explicitly  set  forth  the  relation 
between  baptism  by  water  and  repentance  than  this 
text.  It  requires  blindness,  superinduced  by  a  theory, 
to  make  confession  in  order  to  water  baptism  out  of 
the  taxt,  and  that  baptism  in  order  to  the  remission 


THEORY  OF  POSITIVE  INSTITUTES. 


55 


of  siu  out  of  any  thing  or  all  that  is  said  about  John's 
baptism  in  the  New  Testament. 

But  the  absurdity  of  this  theory  of  positive  insti- 
tutes, as  applied  to  the  dispensation  of  the  Baptist,  is 
farther  manifest  in  the  fact  that  Jesus,  while  minis- 
tering here  on  earth,  uniformly  forgave  sins  without 
any  postive  acts  of  obedience,  but  directly  upon  an 
exercise  of  faith.    For  example,  the  sick  of  the  palsy, 
Matt,  ix,  2  :     And  Jesus  seeing  their  faith,  said  unto 
the  sick  of  the  palsy.  Son,  be  of  good  cheer ;  thy  sins 
be  forgiven  thee.''    To  the  sinning  woman  in  the  house 
of  Simon,  Luke  vii,  44-50:  "Thy  faith  hath  saved 
thee  ;  go  in  peace."    Here  Jesus  commanded  no  obe- 
dience to  positive  institutes,  in  order  to  remission. 
He  did  not  command  baptism  or  any  thing  else.  It 
can  not  be  said  obedience  was  impossible  to  them,  as 
it  is  said  of  the  thief  on  the  cross.    The  only  attempted 
reply  is,  that  the  Master  himself  was  present,  and  had 
a  right  to  prescribe  such  conditions  as  he  saw  fit.  To 
this  it  is  sufficient  to  reply  that  Jesus  never  contrar 
vened  any  of  the  fundamental  demands  of  his  law. 
What  he  requires  of  one  sinner  he  requires  of  all,  as 
conditions  to  pardon  of  siu.    He  lays  down  the  con- 
ditions in  order  to  justification,  in  the  parable  of  the 
Pharisee  and  the  publican.    Luke  xviii,  10-14:  The 
publican  simply  prayed,  "God  be  merciful  to  me  a 
sinner,    .    .    .    and  he  went  down  to  his  house 
justified  rather  than  the  other."    The  Pharisee  had 
obedience  to   positive   institutes  to  present  as  the 


56 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


grounds  of  bis  justification.  He  coukl  have  even  said, 
as  was  said  of  his  brethren,  Mark  vii,  4:  And  when 
I  come  from  the  market,  except  I  baptize  I  eat  not."  * 
But  he  was  not  justified. 

Jesus,  in  his  conversation  with  Xicodemus,  laid 
down  explicitly  the  conditions  in  order  to  salvation, 
justification,  or  pardon  of  sin,  John  iii,  14-18:  And 
as  Moses  lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even 
so  must  the  Son  of  man  be  lifted  up,  that  whosoever 
believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  eternal 
life.  For  God  so  loved  the  world  that  he  gave  his 
only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  believeth  in  him 
should  not  perish,  but  have  everlasting  life.  .  .  . 
He  that  believeth  on  him  is  not  condemned ;  but  he 
that  believeth  not  is  condemned  already,  because  he 
hath  not  believed  in  the  name  of  the  only  begotten 
Son  of  God."  This  language  is  definite  as  to  what 
Jesus  required,  in  order  to  the  remission  of  sin — the 
removal  of  condemnation.  This  conversation  was  had 
during  the  so-called  dispensation  of  John  the  Baptist, 
and  manifestly  laid  down  the  conditions  to  salvation 
at  that  time. 

This  scheme  of  doctrine  teaches  that  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  or     reign  of  heaven in  the  dialect  of 


*In  this  text  the  verb  and  the  noun  3a-rL(mo;\yoih. 

occur,  and  are  transhited  wash,  ivashing.  Had  they  been  trans- 
lated baptize  and  baptism,  the  ordinary  reader  would  have 
had  some  light  that  he  does  not  now  have  on  this  subject  of 
baptism. 


THEORY  OF  POSITIVE  INSTITUTES,  57 


Campbellisra,  was  not  set  up  until  on  the  clay  of  Pen- 
tecost ;  and  that  to  Peter  was  intrusted  the  keys  of 
the  kiugdom,  and  that  he  opened  its  doors  in  his  ser- 
mon on  that  occasion.  Mr.  Campbell  puts  it  in  this 
way  :  ^  "  Peter,  now  holding  the  keys  of  the  kingdom 
of  Jesus,  and  speaking  under  the  commission  for 
converting  the  world,  and  by  the  authority  of  the 
Lord  Jesus — guided,  inspired,  and  accompanied  by  the 
Spirit — may  be  expected  to  speak  the  truth,  the  whole 
truth  plainly  and  intelligibly,  to  his  brethren,  the 
Jews/'  Again :  t  ''Thus  commenced  the  reign  of 
heaven  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  in  the  person  of  the 
Messiah,  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  anointed  monarch 
of  the  universe.'' 

Of  course,  harmonious  with  this  theory,  the  decla- 
rations concerning  the  Church  of  God  which  we  find 
in  the  Gospels  must  be  explained  away,  as  well  as 
liiose  also  about  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  or  kingdom 
of  God,  which  do  not  quadrate  with  it. 

For  example,  the  proclamation  of  the  Baptist,  and 
also  of  the  Master  himself,  that  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  is  at  hand,"  is  always  interpreted  ^'  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  has  come  nigh,"  because  the  Greek 
dut^o)  has  also  that  meaning.  But  in  two  instances 
the  verb  (fddi^co  occurs — Matt,  xii,  28,  and  Luke  xi, 
20  :  *'  The  kingdom  of  God  is  come  unto  you,"  and 
■'The  kingdom  of  God  has  come  upon  you."    It  wdll  ^ 


Christian  System,"  p.  194.    m  p.  171. 


58 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


hardly  be  maintained  that  in  these  instances  the  Savior 
meant  to  teach  these  carping,  fault-finding  Jews  that 
in  a  few  years  the  kingdom  of  God  would  come. 

But  there  are  other  passages  which  can  not,  by  any 
torture  or  critical  emendation,  be  made  to  teach  that 
the  kingdom  of  lieaven  had  not  yet  begun.  Matt,  xxi, 
31:  "Verily  I  say  unto  you,  that  the  publicans  and 
liarlots  go  into  the  kingdom  of  God  before  you." 
Matt,  xxi,  43:  "  Therefore  I  say  unto  you,  the  king- 
dom of  God  shall  be  taken  from  you,  and  given  to  a 
nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof."  Matt,  xxiii, 
13  :  Woe  unto  you,  scribes  and  Pharisees,  hypocrites, 
for  ye  shut  up  the  kingdom  of  heaven  against  men: 
for  ye  neither  go  in  yourselves,  neither  suffer  ye  them 
that  are  entering  to  go  in."  So  also  Mark  i,  15;  iii, 
24  ;  Luke  xvi,  16,  et  al.  It  is  true  these  phrases — 
"  kingdom  of  heaven,"  "kingdom  of  God  " — are  used 
in  the  Gospels  with  somewhat  of  a  diversity  of  signi- 
fication,— at  one  time  referring  to  the  divine  economy 
of  grace  established  among  men  in  the  calling  of  Israel 
to  be  the  depositors  of  the  divine  plan  of  salvation 
and  the  conservators  of  revelation ;  at  another  refer- 
ring to  the  era  of  the  Messiah  ;  at  another  referring  to 
his  complete  conquest  of  the  world  to  himself;  at  an- 
other to  the  reign  of  Christ  in  the  heart;  and  at  another 
to  his  glorious  perfect  kingdom  above.  But  these  are 
all  grounded  in  the  same  great  thought — the  sov- 
ereignty of  Christ.  It  is  therefore  unreasonable  and 
confusing  to  attempt  to  make  these  terras  to  describe 


THEORY  OF  POSITIVE  INSTITUTES. 


59 


any  one  epoch  in  the  scheme  of  divine  grace — as  Pen- 
tecost. The  kingdom  of  heaven  in  every  essential 
sense  was  established,  or  "  set  up/'  among  men  long  be- 
fore this.  But  this  idea  is  a  part  of  a  scheme  of  doc- 
trine that  has  for  its  aim  the  complete  isolation  and 
separation  of  the  divine  economy  into  parts,  to  show 
that  at  one  time  God  had  plans  and  purposes  that  at 
another  he  completely  changed ;  in  other  words,  that 
the  Christian  dispensation  presents  a  thorough  emen- 
dation of  the  divine  procedure  and  requirements  from 
what  they  were  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation. 

Let  it  be  not  forgotten,  that  if  this  theory  of  the 
"  setting  up''  of  the  kingdom  on  Pentecost  falls  to  the 
ground,  a  principal  stone  in  the  foundation  upon  which 
Campbellism  builds  is  gone,  and  the  theory  necessarily 
falls  with  it.  Mr.  Campbell  says  :  *  "  Having,  from  all 
these  considerations,  seen  that  until  the  death  of  the 
Messiah  his  kingdom  coidd  not  commence,  and  haviug 
seen  from  the  record  itself  that  it  did  not  commence, 
before  his  resurrection,  we  proceed  to  the  develop- 
ment of  things  after  his  resurrection,  to  ascertain  the 
day  upon  which  the  kingdom  was  set  up,  or  the  reign 
of  heaven  begun."  Now,  all  this  is  necessary  to 
prepare  the  way  for  the  doctrine  of  the  commission,  as 
propounded  by  him  and  his  followers,  and  the  idea 
also  that  Peter,  having  the  keys  of  the  kingdom, 
opened  it  in  the  thirty-eighth  verse  of  the  second 


*  "Christian  System,"  p.  167. 


60 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


chapter  of  Acts,  and  laid  down  the  inflexible  con- 
ditions to  admission  into  it  for  the  entire  Christian 
dispensation.  Hence,  Campbell  tells  us  :  *  "  The  stat- 
utes and  laws  of  the  Christian  kingdom  are  not  to  be 
sought  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  or  antecedent  to  the 
day  of  Pentecost." 

A  more  completely  artificial  system  of  faith  could 
not  well  be  evolved.  The  crucial  point  of  the  whole 
is  baptism  by  immersion  as  a  necessary  condition  to 
the  pardon  of  sin.  To  it  the  Scriptures  must  all  be 
made  to  conform,  w^hatever  violence  of  translation  or 
interpretation  may  be  required. 

*  "  Christian  System,"  p.  157. 


THE  COMMISSION, 


61 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  COMMISSION. 

An  immediate  doctrinal  correlate  of  CampbelPs 
theory  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  is  his  doctrine  of  the 
commission  given  to  the  disciples.  It  is  at  once  as- 
sumed that  the  whole  system  is  to  be  found  here  in 
the  narrow  compass  of  a  positive  precept.  Campbell 
says:*  "The  commission  for  converting  the  world 
teaches  that  immersion  was  necessary  for  discipleship; 
for  Jesus  said,  ^Convert  the  nations,  immersing  them 
into  the  name,'  etc.,  and  ^  teaching  them  to  observe,' 
etc.  The  construction  of  the  sentence  fairly  indicates 
that  no  person  can  be  a  disciple  according  to  the  com- 
jnission  who  has  not  been  immersed ;  for  the  active 
participle,  in  connection  with  the  imperative,  either 
declares  the  manner  in  which  the  imperative  shall  be 
obeyed,  or  explains  the  meaning  of  the  command;  .  .  . 
for  example,  *  cleanse  the  house,  sweeping  it;'  thus, 
'convert  (or  disciple)  the  nations,  immersing  them.'" 

Also,  according  to  this  system,  the  commission  is 
to  be  found  in  modified  form  in  the  other  three  Gos- 
pels, Mark  xvi,  15,  16:  "And  he  said  unto  them. 
Go  ye  into  all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to 


*"  Christian  Sys*em,"  p.  198. 


62 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


every  creature.  He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized 
shall  be  saved,  and  he  that  believeth  not  shall  be 
damned."  Luke  xxiv,  46,  47  :  "And  said  unto  them, 
Thus  it  is  written,  and  thus  it  behooved  Christ  to  suf- 
fer, and  to  rise  from  the  dead  the  third  day:  and  that 
repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached 
in  his  name  among  all  nations,  beginning  at  Jerusa- 
lem." John  XX,  22,  23 :  "  And  when  he  had  said  this, 
he  breathed  on  them,  and  saith  unto  them.  Receive  ye 
the  Holy  Ghost :  whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they  are 
remitted  unto  them  ;  and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain, 
they  are  retained." 

A  careful  comparison  of  these  passages  in  the  light 
of  subsequent  Scripture  teachings  and  facts,  will  show 
that  they  lend  no  support  whatever  to  the  ideas  that 
these  teachers  assume  to  educe  from  them. 

There  are  a  number  of  assumptions  usually  made 
here  that  need  to  be  examined, — in  the  first  place,  the 
assumption,  in  the  face  of  the  larger  part  of  the  Chris- 
tian world,  that  immersion  alone  is  baptism,  and  that 
the  Savior  said,  "  Go  ye  therefore,  and  teach  all  na- 
tions, immersing  them.'**    It  is  sufficient  to  dismiss 

*It  appears  very  certain  to  the  author  that  if  the  assump- 
tion that  God  commanded  an  immersion  is  true,  he  would 
most  certainly  have  commanded  an  emersion.  Immersion 
never  takes  its  subject  out  of  the  water.  If  he  is  immersed, 
he  is  there  yet,  unless  he  has  been  emersrd,  and  with  emersion 
the  immersion  has  ended.  This  fundamental  meaning  of  the 
word  immerse  is  here  brought  out  that  the  reader  may  see 
that  baptism  and  immersion  are  not  equivalents,  as  is  assumed 


THE  COMMISSION. 


63 


this  with  the  remark,  inasmuch  as  we  do  not  at  pres- 
ent propose  to  discuss  the  mode  of  baptism,  that  if 
immersion  is  an  essential  condition  to  the  remission 
of  sin,  is  it  not  passing  strange  that  the  act  was  not 
carefully  defined,  so  that  multiplied  millions  of  intel- 
ligent, honest  people  could  not  be  so  greatly  mistaken 
as  they  hav^e  been  through  the  Christian  ages? 

A  second  assumption  is  that  nadr^T£'j(o — to  disciple 
or  make  disciples,  rendered  teach  in  the  Author- 
ized Version — is  synonymous  with  convert,  and  remit 
sins.  This  idea  is  a  very  forcible  illustration  of  the 
close  affinity  between  the  theories  of  Campbell  and  the 
doctrine  of  Rome.  Both  assume  that  they  are  com- 
manded to  go  and  remit  sins,  and  both  claim  to  do  so 
by  baptism.  This  is  the  only  difference :  Rome  con- 
tinues to  exercise  the  prerogative  after  baptism ;  Camp- 
bellism  assumes  to  go  no  further  than  baptism.  Con- 
version is  a  word  of  quite  a  latitude  of  meaning.  An 
individual  is  converted  when  he  has  changed  his  faith 
or  opinions.  This  a  purely  intellectual  process.  He 
may  do  this  himself  by  investigation  or  inquiry  after 
the  truth;   or  the  teaching  of  another  may  be  the 

by  Campbell  and  his  followers.  A  person  may  be  in  a  bap- 
tized state  ;  but  he  can  not  be  in  a  state  of  immersion  without 
being  hopelessly  drowned.  Baptism  and  immersion  are  not  syn- 
onymous. Baptism  is  the  rite  of  cleansing  or  purification,  and 
its  ideas  are  wholly  spiritual;  immersion  is  a  physical  act  of 
submergence  underneath  a  physical  substance  or  fluid.  Earlier 
advocates  of  this  theory  called  it  dipping,  and  dipping  it  is ; 
for  the  word  dip  takes  out  again. 


64 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


principal  agency  in  it.  In  the  second  case,  the  teacher 
may  be  said  to  have  converted  the  other.  But  to  con- 
vert by  the  mere  act  of  baptism,  is  an  extension  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word  that  certainly  has  no  warrant 
whatever  in  Scripture. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  teaching  comes  after 
the  baptism  in  the  only  commission  where  baptism  is 
mentioned.  First,  ^'disciple  them  by  baptism;"  then, 
teach"  them.  But  does  disciple"  and  convert  " 
mean  the  same  thing?  Alexander  Campbell  was  the 
first  to  broach  such  an  idea.  To  make  a  disciple 
means  to  make  a  learner,  a  pupil.  To  convert  means 
to  change  in  heart,  life,  character.  The  first  is  an 
outward  act  of  profession ;  the  second  is  an  inward 
spiritual  change.  So  the  great  body  of  the  Church 
for  ages,  even  from  apostolical  times,  has  understood 
the  commission  in  Matt,  xxviii,  19,  to  authorize  the 
baptism  of  infants. 

There  can  be  no  conversion,  the  followers  of  Camp- 
bell admit,  without  fiiith,  repentance,  confession.  If 
so,  how  could  the  disciples  convert  by  baptism  ?" 
If,  on  the  other  hand,  as  Mr.  Campbell  says,  conver- 
sion and  immersion  are  the  same  thing,*  then  repent- 
ance, faith,  and  confession  are  no  part  of  it.  In  this 
hopeless  confusion  are  we  left  by  this  attempt  to  har- 
monize these  ideas. 

In  tlie  Scripture  use  of  the  term,  conversion  refers 


*"  Christian  System,"  p.  195. 


THE  COMMISSION. 


65 


to  all  that  change  that  takes  place  in  a  sinner. to  tarn  him 
from  sin  to  the  service  of  God ;  that  is,  conviction  of  sin, 
repentance,  faith,  pardon,  regeneration,  adoption.  The 
work  is  both  divine  and  human, — conviction,  pardon, 
regeneration,  adoption  are  the  divine  side ;  "  repent- 
ance towards  God  and  faith  towards  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ"*  are  the  human  side.  There  is  not  one  sin- 
gle passage  of  Scripture  that,  either  directly  or  by  fair 
inference,  calls  baptism  conversion.  Mr.  Campbell 
quotes  Acts  xxvi,  17,  18:  "Unto  whom  now  I  send 
thee,  to  open  their  eyes,  and  to  turn  them  from  dark- 
ness unto  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God, 
that  they  may  receive  forgiveness  or  sins,  and  inher- 
itance among  the  sanctified.'^  Luke  xxii,  32:  "When 
thou  art  converted,  strengthen  thy  brethren ;"  and 
James  v,  19,  20:  "If  any  of  you  err  from  the  truth, 
and  one  convert  him,  let  him  know  that  he  who  con- 
vert eth  the  sinner  from  the  error  of  his  way,  shall 
save  a  soul  from  death,  and  hide  a  multitude  of  sins.'' 
If  we  had  been  selecting  passages  of  Scripture  to  show 
the  utter  fallacy  of  this  doctrine,  we  could  have  se- 
lected none  better  for  such  purjiose.  In  the  first  the 
apostle  Paul  most  clearly  sets  forth  that  he  was  sent 
to  the  Gentiles  to  convert  them  by  teaching ;  and  as  to 
the  divine  side  of  the  work,  the  forgiveness  of  sins 
and  sanctification  was  predicated  upon  faith  as  the 
individual  act.    There  is  no  water  baptism  in  the 


*Acts  XX,  21. 


6 


66 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


passage,  and  the  inference  that  places  it  in  the  verb 
i7:caz(fe(fcOj  is  without  any  warrant  whatever.  There 
must  bo,  indeed,  a  wonderful  virtue  in  water  baptism, 
if  it  will  ^'turn  men  from  darkness  unto  light. 

But  perhaps  some  follower  of  A.  Campbell  may 
say  that  he  meant  that  baptism  is  only  an  essential 
step  in  the  process  of  turning.  To  this  it  is  sufficient 
to  reply  that  if  converting  and  baptizing  in  the  com- 
mission are  identical  in  signification,  then  CampVjell's 
interpretation  must,  without  limitation,  be  put  on  these 
ms.sages. 

AVith  regard  to  the  second  passage  which  speaks 
of  Peter's  reclamation  after  his  grievous  fall,  what 
evidence  is  there  to  show  that  he  was  baptized?  If 
reclamation  is  conversion,  and  baptism  is  conversion,* 
then  when  was  Peter  converted  or  baptized  ?  And 
why  do  not  the  followers  of  A.  Campbell  convert  all 
backsliders  in  the  same  way? 

And,  with  reference  to  the  quotation  from  James 
V,  19,  20,  the  first  verse  of  the  quotation  clearly 
sets  forth  that  the  conversion  here  spoken  of  is  the 
conversion  of  the  brother  who  may  have  "erred  from 
the  way,"  a  back.slidden  disciple;  and  if  conversion 
and  baptism  are  the  same  thing,  here  is  a  clear  case 
wdiere  baptism  must  be  repeated. 

A  third  assumption  is,  that  Christian  baptism  is 
absolutely  essential  to  making  disciples,  while  no  fact 


*.See  "Christian  System,"  pp.  198,  208,  209. 


THE  COMMISSION. 


67 


is  better  attested  than  that  there  were  disciples  of 
Christ  who  had  never  received  Christian  baptism.  In 
Acts  xix,  1,  we  find  disciples  who  were  to  all  prac- 
tical purposes  such,  and  accepted  of  God,  who  yet  were 
not  baptized  by  Christian  baptism.  Mark,  the  in- 
spired historian,  called  them  disciples.^' 

Hence,  from  these  insuperable  objections,  we 
think  the  inference  is  legitimate  and  necessary,  that 
the  theory  finds  no  support  in  the  commission  as  de- 
fined by  Matthew. 

But  the  stronghold  of  the  theory  is  believed  by 
its  advocates  to  be  the  commission  as  given  by  St. 
Mark  xvi,  15,  16.  This  they  triumphantly  point  to 
as  a  "  thus  saith  the  Lord,''  in  support  of  their  doc- 
trine. Mr.  Braden,  in  his  debate  with  Dr.  Hughey, 
says :  *  You  can  all  understand  a  plain  ^  Thus  saith 
the  Lord.'  The  statement,  ^  He  that  believes  and  is 
baptized  shall  be  saved  from  his  sins,'  is  as  plain  as 
the  command,  ^  Thou  shalt  not  steal.'  God  has  said, 
*  He  that  believes  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  from 
his  sins.'  Do  you  believe  him  ?  Did  the  Son  of 
God  mean  what  he  said?" 

Now,  if  there  is  a  passage  in  the  Scriptures,  in 
the  Authorized  Version,  that  seems  to  teach  this  doc- 
trine, it  is  this  one.  If  it  can  not  be  made  out  from 
this,  then  it  can  not  be  made  out  at  all.  Let  us  look 
at  its  terms.    It  will  not  be  denied  that    shall  be 


*  "  Hughey  and  Braden  Debate,"  pp.  195-196. 


68 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


saved"  and  ''shall  be  damned"  are  in  antithesis  to 
each  other.  If  so,  the  salvation  spoken  of  here  is 
final  or  eternal  salvation.  "  He  that  believeth  not " 
shall  not  be  damned  until  the  end  of  his  probation. 
"He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved" 
at  last.  "  He  that  believeth  not  shall  be  damned  "  at 
last.  So  that  this  does  not  set  forth  the  conditions  to 
present  salvation,  the  salvation  of  the  sinner,  but  the 
conditions  to  their  final  salvation.  We  have  called 
attention  to  this  fact  to  show  that  there  are  not  two 
conditions  or  personal  acts  required  here,  but  a  condi- 
tion, faith ;  and  a  state  of  heart,  baptism  or  j)urity. 

The  propriety  of  this  interpretation  will  be  more 
manifest  when  it  is  seen  that  if  both  faith  and  bap- 
tism are  made  personal  conditions  or  acts  of  the  in- 
dividual, then,  to  complete  the  antithesis,  the  text 
must  read  ''  he  that  believeth  not  and  is  not  baptized 
shall  be  damned."  The  doctrine  of  Carapbellism  is, 
he  that  is  not  baptized  shall  be  damned — the  very 
thing  the  text  does  not  say.  It  affirms  that  damnation 
is  the  consequence  of  unbelief  The  only  escape  from 
this  difficulty  is  to  say  that  every  true  believer  will 
be  baptized.  Which  is  squarely  untrue.  Again  it  is 
manifest  that  if  the  proposition  is  true  that  'Mie  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned,"  it  is  also  true  that 
"  he  that  believeth  shall  not  be  damned,"  that  is, 
shall  be  saved.  The  Savior  says  identically  the  same 
thing  in  John  iii,  18:  ''He  that  believeth  on  him  is 
not  condemned ;  but  he  that  believed  not,  is  condemned 


THE  COMMISSION. 


69 


already.'^  See  also  v,  24 ;  vi,  40-47  ;  and  xx,  31.  Here 
we  have  an  antithesis  that  clearly  sets  forth  that  con- 
demnation is  predicated  on  unbelief  alone,  Avhile  non- 
condemnation  is  the  result  of  faith.  The  passage 
therefore  does  not  teach  the  doctrine  of  condemnation 
for  not  being  baptized,  and  this  is  Campbellism. 

The  whole  difficulty  in  the  interpretation  of  this 
passage  arises  from  the  attempt  to  read  ritual  or 
water  baptism  into  it.  Place  Spirit  baptism  in  the 
text,  and  it  coalesces  into  perfect  harmony.  "  He 
that  believeth  and  is  purified  shall  be  saved. ^^He 
that  believeth  not "  will  not  be  purified  or  baptized, 
and  therefore  shall  be  damned. 

*  Dr.  Murdock,  translator  of  the  Syriac  New 
Testament  into  English,  in  an  article  on  the  ^Syriac 
Words  for  Baptism '  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  October, 
1850,  says:  "The  declaration  in  Mark  xvi,  15,  16, 
which  in  the  Greek  reads,  ^  Go  ye  into  all  the  world 
and  preach  my  gospel  to  every  creature.  He  that 
believeth  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  but  he  that 
believeth  not  shall  be  damned,'  would  in  the  Syriac 
read,  '  He  that  believeth  and  standeth  fast  shall  be 
saved.' ''  This  serves  to  show  that  in  very  ancient 
times — as  early  as  the  second  century  of  our  era — ■ 
this  passage  was  conceived  not  to  refer  to  the  mere 
rite  of  water  baptism,  but  to  something  more  spiritual 
and  enduring — something  expressive  of  a  state  of 
character. 


Christie  Baptism,"  p.  399. 


70 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


But  the  reader  of  the  Revised  Version  will  notice 
that  the  section  of  Mark^  sixteenth  chapter,  that  con- 
tains the  passage  in  question,  is  separated  by  a  space 
from  the  rest  of  the  text.  AVe  are  told  that  this  was 
done  because  it  was  not  believed  to  be  Mark's  writ- 
ing, but  an  addendum  ^y\  some  subsequent  hand.  (See 
Roberts's  Companion  to  the  New  Revision/'  pages 
61-63.)  The  reasons  for  this  are:  1.  It  was  not  to 
be  found  in  the  two  oldest  manuscripts,  the  Codices 
Sinaiticus  and  Vaticanm.  2.  The  Primitive  fathers, 
Eusebius,  Gregory  of  Xyssa,  Victor  of  Antioch,  Sev- 
erus  of  Antioch,  Jerome,  and  others,  have  said  that 
Mark  did  not  write  it,  and  tiie  best  copies  extant  in 
their  day  did  not  contain  it.  3.  Internal  evidence  is 
strongly  in  support  of  the  claim  that  it  is  an  addendum 
subsequently  made.  It  contains  at  least  seventeen 
new  words  that  St.  Mark  nowhere  else  in  his  Gospel 
has  emj^loyed.  AVe  think  these  objections  are  fatal  to 
it  as  genuine  Scripture.  Certainly  they  present  suffi- 
cient reasons  why  the  damnation  of  the  believing 
penitent  should  not  be  predicated  upon  his  lack  of 
baptism. 

The  commission,  according  to  St.  Luke,  has  noth- 
ing whatever  to  say  about  baptism.  And  yet  Mr. 
Campbell  and  his  followers  claim  to  find  it  in  the 
words  "  that  repentance  and  remission  of  sins  should 
be  preached  m  his  name."  The  preposition  here 
translated  in  is  irri,  the  primary  meaning  of  which  is 
ujjon.    It  is  not  tbe  preposition  that  connects  bap- 


THE  COMMISSION. 


71 


tism  and  the  name  of  Christ — that  is,  e/c  invariably. 
The  obvious  meaning  is,  "that  remission  of  sins 
should  be  preached  upon  (faith  in  his)  name/^  So 
Paul  said  to  the  Philippian  jailer  :  "  Believe  [ir;]  on 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  thou  shalt  be  saved/' 
Similar  illustrations  of  the  use  of  this  preposition  are 
to  be  found  in  Acts  ii,  38;  iii,  16;  xi,  17;  xv,  8,  9; 
1  Peter  i,  22.  In  all  of  which  cases  the  preposition 
izc,  upon,  connected  with  the  name  of  Christ,  either 
has  faith  mentioned  or  implied ;  and  a  large  number 
of  similar  instances  might  be  quoted  in  addition  to 
these. 

The  commission  as  given  by  John  xx,  22,  23,  is 
usually  presented  by  them  to  show  that  the  apostles 
were  charged  with  the  responsibility  of  remitting  sins, 
and  that  this  same  prerogative  has  been  handed  down 
from  them  to  all  preachers  of  the  gospel  in  per- 
petuity. Of  course,  so  far  as  it  goes,  the  claims  of  the 
Papal  Church  could  not  be  more  absolute.  These 
men  hold  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  in  their  right  as 
ministers  of  the  word,  and  they  open  and  shut  the  doors 
at  their  convenience.  The  writer  has  known  them 
to  postpone  the  remission  of  sins  for  two  weeks,  and 
it  is  a  common  occurrence  to  defer  this  remitting  act 
for  twenty-four  hours,  or  from  the  time  the  penitent 
believer  makes  the  proper  confession  until  the  next 
evening;  or  until  the  baptistery  can  be  gotten  ready, 
or  water  sufficient  can  be  found,  be  the  time  long  or 
short. 


72 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


But  this  is  simply  one  of  several  examples  where 
difficult  passages  of  Scripture  are  seized  by  them,  and 
given  an  interpretation  in  harmony  with  their  views, 
and  then  cited  as  proof-texts.  The  most  reasonable 
interpretation  of  the  passage  in  question  is  this:  the 
apostles  of  the  Lord,  under  him  as  founders  of  the 
Church,  were,  through  the  inspiration  given  them, 
endowed  with  powers  and  prerogatives  in  the  Church, 
that,  however  necessary  at  that  time,  were  not  per- 
petuated after  them. 

This  apostolical  authority  and  power  was  mani- 
fested in  several  instances,  as  in  the  case  of  Hymen- 
eus  and  Alexander  in  1  Tim.  i,  20,  and  Ananias 
and  Sapphira  in  Acts  v,  1-11.  These  were  preroga- 
tives that  grew  out  of  the  apostolate,  that  have  not 
been  perpetuated,  and  most  certainly  not  in  the  i^er- 
formance  of  mere  ordinances.  Nothing  but  the  de- 
mands of  a  false  system  could  ever  have  prompted  to 
the  construction  put  upon  the  apostoUcal  commission 
by  these  teachers. 


ON  FAITH  AND  REPENTANCE. 


73 


CHAPTER  VI. 

CAMPBBLIvISM  ON  FAITH  AND  REPENTANCE. 

Campbellism,  in  order  to  present  a  system  that 
will  be  consistent  with  itself,  is  compelled  to  place 
faith  before  repentance,  and  also  to  deny  heart-faith, 
making  it  to  consist  only  in  the  assent  of  the  mind  to 
truths  established.  Require  the  system  to  put  re- 
pentance in  the  right  place  in  the  sinner's  approach  to 
God,  and  its  important  proof-texts  require  at  once  an 
explanation  different  from  that  they  give  them,  and  in 
conflict  with  their  theory  of  doctrine.  This  fact  we 
will  make  plain  when  we  come  to  consider  Acts  ii,  38. 

We  will  let  them  define  the  relation  of  faith  and 
repentance  in  their  own  language.  Mr.  Campbell 
says :  "  Repentance  is  an  effect  of  faith,''  having  de- 
fined faith  above  as  the  simple  belief  of  testimony, 
or  of  the  truth,  and  never  can  be  more  or  less  than 
that.''*  So  that,  according  to  him,  faith  is  the  merely 
intellectual  act  of  the  acceptance  of  truth,  and  repent- 
ance must  necessarily  follow  after  such  a  faith.  Mr. 
Braden  lays  down  the  following  order  :  f  "1.  Hearing 
the  gospel.    2.  Believing  the  gospel  as  faith.    3.  Re- 

*"  Christian  System,"  p.  52. 

t  "  Hughey  and  Braden,"  p.  18G. 

7 


74 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


pcntancc.  4.  Confes.sion  of  Christ.  5.  Obedience  or 
baptism.  6.  Pardon  or  remission. This  order  is  es- 
sential to  the  system.  Reverse  it,  and  tlie  scheme  of 
doctrine  falls  to  the  ground.  Put  faitli  after  repent- 
ance, and  Acts  ii,  38,  must  be  given  a  different  inter- 
pretation from  that  they  are  accustomed  to  give  it. 

Faith  after  repentance,  however,  is  the  uniform 
divine  order.  Nowhere  within  the  range  of  the  Di- 
vine Word  is  the  order  reversed.  In  Matt,  xxi,  32,  we 
have  a  specific  statement  as  to  the  relation  that  faith 
and  repentance  sustain  to  each  other:  "For  John 
came  unto  you  in  the  way  of  righteousness,  and  ye  be- 
lieved him  not;  but  the  publicans  and  the  harlots  be- 
lieved him  :  and  ye,  when  ye  had  seen  it,  repented  not 
afterward,  that  ye  might  believe  him."  What  can 
more  explicitly  set  forth  the  precedence  of  repentance? 
It  will  not  help  the  theory  at  all  to  say  that  the  verb 
for  "  repented  "  is  /i£ra/^£/o/ia/,  and  not  /i£Tauoi(o ;  for 
the  repentance  here  is  clearly  defined  as  a  repentance 
that,  with  faith,  would  have  brou;rht  them  into  "the 
kingdom  of  God,''  verse  31.  Again,  it  is  not  by  any 
means  conceded  among  scholars  that  fizzajdloiuu  de- 
fines simple  regret,  and  never  otherwise.  Dean  Trench, 
in  his  "  New  Testament  Synonyms,"  clearly  disproves 
this  idea.  But  regret  is  a  part  of  repentance,  and  be- 
longs to  all  genuine  repentance ;  and  therefore,  unless 
repentance  is  divided  in  two,  and  faith  put  between 
regret  and  godly  sorrow  for  sin,  the  argument  from 
the  word  amounts  to  Dothing. 


ON  FAITH  AND  REPENTANCE. 


75 


Again,  in  Mark  i,  15,  the  same  relation  is  clearly 
exemplified:  ^^And  saying,  The  time  is  fulfilled,  and 
the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand :  repent  ye,  and  be- 
lieve the  gospel also  Acts  xx,  21 :  Testifying  both 
to  the  Jews,  and  also  to  the  Greeks,  repentance 
toward  God,  and  faith  toward  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ/' 
These  will  suffice  to  show  that  in  the  gospel  plan  re- 
pentance comes  before  faith. 

The  mistake  of  Campbell  and  his  followers  arises 
from  their  misconception  of  the  nature  of  faith.  With 
them,  faith  is  merely  an  act  of  the  intellect.  It  is  such 
as  all  persons  put  forth  who  believe  the  Bible  to  be 
the  Avord  of  God.  For  if  it  is  conceived  of  as  an  act 
of  the  heart  accepting  Christ  as  the  Savior  from  sin, 
it  must  be  preceded  by  repentance,  sorrow  for  sin, 
and  an  earnest  turning  from  sin.  Christ  can  not  be 
accepted  as  a  Savior  from  sin  only  by  such  as  are  tired 
of  sin  and  want  to  get  rid  of  it.  A  faith  that  comes 
before  repentance  must  come  before  a  godly  sorrow 
for  sin,  or  a  desire  to  turn  from  sin.  It  is  a  rather 
singular  faith  in  Christ  that  does  not  desire  to  be  saved 
from  sin.  Yet  this  is  the  state  of  the  case  if  faith 
precedes  repentance.  But  it  is  often  retorted.  How 
can  a  man  repent  until  he  believes  the  Word?  "  He 
must  hear  it,  he  must  believe  it  before  he  will  repent. 
This  is  not  necessarily  true;  multiplied  thousands 
truly  repent  who  never  hear  the  Word.  All  that  is 
necessary  to  a  genuine  repentance,  is  the  belief  that  I 
am  a  sinner,  and  a  desire  to  get  rid  of  my  sins.  This 


76 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


belief  may  exist  \\it\i  or  without  the  AVord.  But  a 
belief  iu  Christ  as  my  Savior  can  not  exist  without 
gorrow  for  sin,  and  therefore  the  faith  that  in  any 
eense  has  to  do  with  personal  salvation,  is  a  faith 
after  repentance,  and  founded  on  repentance. 

Attention  has  been  called  to  the  fact  that  if  re- 
pentance and  faith  were  placed  in  right  relation  to 
each  other,  a  material  change  must  be  made  in  Camp- 
bell's interpretation  of  Acts  ii,  38.  Faith  after  re- 
pentance will  place  it  in  connection  with  "  the  name 
of  Jesus  Christ,''  and  the  passage  will  read:  "Re- 
pent and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you  [believing] 
on  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
And  this  will  at  once  dispose  of  the  supposed  relation 
as  instrumental  cause  between  baptism  and  remission 
of  sin.  "  [Believing]  on  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  is 
for  the  remission  of  sin."  The  order  then  will  stand: 
'^Repent,  and  [believing]  on  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ 
for  the  remission  of  sins,  be  baptized  every  one  of 
you."  Baptism  is  upon  repentance  and  faith  on  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  remission  of  sins.  Now, 
let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  if  faith  comes  after  re- 
pentance, it  must  occupy  just  the  place  in  this  pas- 
sage that  is  above  given  to  it.  It  can  occupy  no  other. 
This  is  sufficient  reason,  we  think,  for  their  disagree- 
ing with  all  Prot^.'Stant  Christendom  as  to  the  relation 
of  faith  and  repentance. 

But  it  is  said  by  the  advocates  of  Campbellism 


ON  FAITH  AND  REPENTANCE. 


77 


that  the  persons  who  were  directly  addressed  in  Acts 
ii,  38,  had  faith,  because  they  were  pricked  to  the 
heart,  and  asked,  "What  shall  we  do?'^  Here  is  the 
mistake  before  spoken  of, — intellectual  belief  or  con- 
viction as  to  the  truth  is  put  for  faith  in  Christ  as  a 
personal  Savior.  They  were  convinced  of  sin  and  felt 
their  need  of  salvation;  but  this  was  by  no  means 
saviug  faith  in  Christ.  Again,  it  may  with  equal  pro- 
priety be  said  they  had  repented,  for  they  had  a  pain- 
fiil  sense  of  sin  and  a  desire  to  know  how  to  get  rid 
of  it.  In  other  words,  they  had  sorrow  for  sin,  and 
in  their  hearts  were  turning  from  it ;  and  this  is  gen- 
uine repentance.  So  that  the  word  translated  repent^ 
in  this  connection  simply  means  turn.  "  Turn  and  be 
baptized  [believing]  on  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for 
the  remission  of  sins.^'  Tlieir  baptism  was  to  be  an 
expression  of  their  faith  o?i  or  upon  Jesus  Christ  for 
the  remission  of  sin. 

The  followers  of  Campbell  are  accustomed  to  assert 
that  there  is  but  one  kind  of  faith.  In  this  they  are 
simply  following  in  the  wake  of  their  great  leader, 
who  declares  that  "faith  is  only  the  belief  of  testi- 
mony,'^ *  meaning  thereby  to  deny  that  there  is  any 
property  or  quality  belonging  to  saving  faith  other 
than  the  mere  intellectual  assent  to  truth  estab- 
lished. This  in  fact  he  asserts  :t  ^' Here  I  am  led 
to  expatiate  upon  a  very  popular  and  pernicious  error 


*  "  Christian  SystGrn,"  p.  113.    t  Id.  114. 


78 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLIS}!. 


of  modern  times.  That  error  is  that  the  nature  or 
power  and  saving  efficacy  of  faith  is  not  in  the  truth 
believed,  but  in  the  nature  of  our  faith,  or  in  the 
manner  of  believing  the  truth.  Hence  all  that  un- 
meaning jargon  about  the  nature  of  faith,  and  all 
those  disdainful  sneers  at  what  is  called  ^historic 
faith,^  as  if  there  could  be  any  faith  without  history 
written  or  spoken.  Who  ever  believed  in  Christ 
without  hearing  the  history  of  him?''  What  con- 
fusion must  have  existed  in  this  man's  mind  to  cause 
him  to  write,  to  use  his  term,  such  a  jargon  of  ab- 
surdities. He  certainly  would  not  have  the  reader  to 
understand  that  there  is  no  difference  in  nature  be- 
tween the  faith  of  devils  and  that  of  pious  Abraham. 
(James  ii.)  Or  that  Paul  is  not  defining  the  nature 
of  faith  in  Rom.  x,  10:  "With  the  heart  man  be- 
lieveth  unto  righteousness."  Again,  "  weak "  faith, 
"strong"  faith,  "little"  faith,  "great"  faith,  are 
terms  defining  tlie  nature  of  the  particular  faith  re- 
ferred to  in  the  Scriptures.  In  Matt,  ix,  29,  Jesus 
said  to  the  blind  men :  "According  to  your  faith  be  it 
done  unto  you."  By  this  he  meant.  According  to  the 
nature  of  your  faith  be  it  done  unto  you ;  for  they  had 
already  faith  enough  to  ask  to  be  restored  to  sight. 
And  furthermore,  how  unreasonable  the  idea  that 
the  saving  efficacy  of  faith  is  only  in  the  truth  be- 
lieved, and  not  in  the  nature  of  the  faith  also!  The 
truth  believed  is  the  divine  side  of  the  salvation,  and 
the  manner  of  believing  it  is  our  individual  act,  and 


ON  FAITH  AND  REPENTANCE. 


79 


wc  may  believe  with  the  heart,  or  we  may  not;  and 
right  between  these  lies  the  possibility  of  our  salva- 
tion. How  does  it  meet  any  issue  concerning  the 
nature  of  the  iudividuaPs  personal  act  of  faith  to  say, 
"  The  saving  efficacy  is  in  the  truth  believed  It  is 
there  before  it  is  believed,  and  there  if  it  never  is  be- 
lieved ;  but  it  is  only  appropriated  to  the  individual 
by  the  manner  of  his  personal  belief.  The  fact  is,  the 
saving  efficacy  is  back  of  the  truth  also — is  in  God 
alone.  His  truth  contains  the  promise  of  this  efficacy, 
and  heart  faith  appropriates  it.  It  is  characteristic 
of  Mr.  Campbell,  and  also  of  his  followers,  to  go  clear 
outside  of  the  real  issue,  and  beat  down  men  of  straw. 
In  this  paragraph  on  faith  there  is  still  another  false 
issue.  The  advocates  of  "  heart  faith  do  not  deny 
"historic  faith."  There  can  be  "historic  faith"  with- 
out heart  faith,  but  there  can  not  be  heart  faith  with- 
out some  historic  faith,  and  we  do  Mr.  CampbelPs  in- 
tellectual discernment  the  credit  to  believe  that  this 
sophism  did  not  deceive  himself. 

Again,  these  teachers  recognize  the  fact  that  "  faith 
purifies  the  heart,"  being  compelled  to  admit  the 
truth  as  set  forth  by  the  apostle  Peter  in  his  account 
of  the  conversion  of  the  household  of  Cornelius,  given 
in  Acts  XV,  8,  9 :  "And  God,  which  kuoweth  the 
hearts,  bare  them  witness,  giving  them  the  Holy 
Ghost,  even  as  he  did  unto  us ;  and  put  no  difference 
between  us  and  them,  purifying  their  hearts  by  faith." 
They  usually  lay  down  their  doctrinal  formula  after 


80 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISyf. 


this  style :  "  Faith  purifies  the  heart,  repentance  puri- 
fies the  life,  and  baptism  changes  the  state  or  rela- 
tion." But  it  follows  that  if  faith  purifies  the  heart, 
and  faith  precedes  repentance,  an  individual  may  have 
a  pure  heart  and  yet  be  unrepentant ;  not  only  so,  but 
be  an  heir  of  heaven,  for  the  Savior  says :  ^'  Blessed 
are  the  pure  in  heart,  for  they  shall  sec  God."  This 
objection  is  fatal  to  this  scheme  of  doctrine,  for  it  can 
not  be  modified  so  as  to  annul  the  fierce  of  it.  Faith 
must  come  before  repentance,  and  these  together  be- 
fore baptism,  else  the  whole  scheme  falls  to  the 
ground.  Admit  heart  faith  after  repentance,  and 
place  conviction  the  result  of  historic  faith  before  re- 
pentance, and  you  have  all  the  conditions,  or  rather 
the  complete  condition,  necessary  to  salvation.  You 
have  salvation — for  purity  of  heart  is  in  itself  the  sal- 
vation of  the  sinner — and  baptism  will  then  be  an  act 
of  grateful  obedience  upon  the  part  of  the  child 
of  God. 


SPECIAL  TERRITORY  OF  THE  THEORY.  81 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THE  SPECIAL  TERRITORY  OF  THE  THEORY. 
ACTS  II,  38. 

We  now  approach  the  stronghold  of  Campbellism, 
aware  that  all  intruders  are  warned  off  this  ground  as 
trespassers.  It  belongs  by  special  pre-emption  to  the 
theory.  Who  that  has  heard  them  preach  has  not 
heard  of  Acts  ii,  38?  It  is  believed  by  them  to  be 
just  in  the  right  place,  and  at  just  the  right  time, 
and  to  have  just  the  right  ring  to  make  out  a  clear 
case  for  the  doctrine.  But  despite  the  supposed  in- 
vincibleness  of  the  deductions  made  from  the  passage, 
we  will  examine  it  in  the  light  of  clear  and  explicit 
Scripture  teaching,  and  upon  rules  of  interpretation, 
the  justness  of  which  can  not  be  questioned. 

In  their  employment  of  this  passage  in  support 
of  their  theory  of  doctrine,  the  claim  is  uniformly 
made  that  it  stands  just  at  the  door  of  the  gospel  dis- 
pensation. Peter,  "holding  the  keys  of  the  king- 
dom,^' is  opening  the  door ;  is  laying  down  the  law 
of  universal  induction  into  this  kingdom,  which  is 
repentance,  confession,  baptism,  remission  of  sins. 
But  let  us  look  at  the  passage :  "  Repent,  and  be  bap- 
tized, every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ 


82 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


for  tlio  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost/^ 

The  thoughtful  student  of  the  passage  will  at  once 
sec  that  the  ideas  above  given  spring  rather  out  of  a 
doctrinal  prepossession  than  legitimately  out  of  the  text. 
Their  interpretation  is  founded  on  several  false  as- 
sumptions :  1.  That  Peter  here  lays  down  the  law 
of  initiation  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  2.  That 
this  command  was  intended  for  all  Gentiles  as  well  as 
the  Jews  then  present.  3.  That  baptism  by  water  is 
the  baptism  spoken  of  in  the  text.  Some  eminent 
scholars  regard  repentance  as  the  baptism  here  spoken 
of,  as  notably  Dr.  Dale,  in  his  great  work  "  Christie 
and  Patristic  Baptism.''  ''"^  4.  That  for  the  remission  of 
sins  means  in  order  to  remission  of  sins.  5.  That  the 
preposition  erV,  translated  /or,  connects  causatively 
baptism  and  "  the  remission  of  sins.'' 

AVe  may  say  in  the  outstart,  in  reviewing  this 
passage,  that  if  it  contains  a  doctrine  so  vital,  so 


*  Dr  Dale,  by  several  examples  of  contemporary  usage  from 
reputable  Greek  writers,  shows  that  repentance  M'as  believed 
to  be  a  baptism  within  and  of  itself.  That  the  term  baptize 
is  applied  to  a  change  wrought  in  the  heart  is  something  that 
can  not  be  disputed.  In  Col.  ii,  11,12,  we  have  circumcision 
of  the  heart,  "the'circumcision  of  Christ "  called  baptism.  In 
a  quotation  already  given  from  Justin  the  Martyr,  we  have 
repentance  designated  as  the  true  baptism.  So  also  Josephus 
defines  John's  baptism  [Ant.  ch.  xviii,  6-2)  as  being  twofold, 
outward  by  water,  and  inward  by  repentance.  The  line  of 
thought  suggested  by  Dr.  Dale's  position  is  a  very  interesting 
one,  and  worthy  of  careful  study. 


SPECIAL  TERRITORY  OF  THE  THEORY.  83 


importaDt  as  the  unvarying  condition  to  the  salvation 
of  the  sinner,  it  has  been  most  unfortunately  con- 
structed ;  so  much  so  that  its  importance  as  a  doc- 
trinal formula  Avas  not  discovered  until  Alexander 
Campbell  brought  it  to  light. 

The  assumption  that  the  apostle  Peter  is  here 
laying  down  the  law  of  induction  into  the  kingdom 
of  Christ  for  all  times  and  all  races,  is  without  any 
proof  whatever,  and  squarely  contradicted  as  to  the 
facts,  even  though  we  should  concede  the  interpreta- 
tion they  place  upon  this  passage ;  for  Peter  in  chapter 
iii,  19,  says:  Repent  ye  therefore,  and  be  converted, 
that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out  when  the  times  of  re- 
freshing shall  come  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord/' 
Here  is  not  a  word  said  about  baptism  in  order  to  the 
remission  of  sins.  In  order  to  get  baptism  into  this 
passage,  it  is  assumed  that  baptism  and  conversion 
are  the  same  thing.  *  "  But  the  second  discourse 
recorded  by  St.  Luke  from  the  same  Peter,  pro- 
nounced in  Solomon's  Portico,  is  equally  pointed,  clear, 
and  in  full  support  of  this  position.  After  he  had 
explained  the  miracle  w^hich  he  had  wrought  in  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  stated  the  same  gospel 
facts,  he  proclaims  the  same  command:  'Reform  and 
be  converted,  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out,'  or 
'  Reform  and  turn  to  God,  that  so  your  sins  may  be 
blotted  out;  that  seasons  of  refreshment  from  the 


■•■"Christian  System,"  p.  195. 


84 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELUSM. 


presence  of  the  Lord  may  come,  and  that  he  may 
send  Jesus,  whom  the  heavens  must  receive  until  the 
accomplishment  of  all  the  things  which  God  has  fore- 
told,' etc.  Peter,  in  substituting  other  terms  in  this 
])roclamation  for  those  used  on  Pentecost,  does  not 
preach  a  new  gospel,  but  the  same  gospel  in  terms 
equally  strong.  He  uses  the  same  word  in  the  first  part 
of  the  command  which  he  used  on  Pentecost.  Instead 
of  '  be  immersed/  he  has  here  ^be  converted,'  or  'turn 
to  God  f  instead  of  '/or  the  remission  of  sins/  here  it 
is  '  that  your  sins  may  be  blotted  out/  etc.'' 

It  is  hard  to  conceive  anything  more  completely 
visionary  than  this  attempt  at  harmonization.  1.  ^'Be 
converted ^[  and  ''be  immersed"  are  assumed  to  be 
identical  in  meaning.  The  word  here  translated  "  be 
converted,"  is  iTzcazoiifco^  and  is  in  the  active  voice, 
and  should  be  translated  "turn  again."  "Repent 
therefore,  and  turn  again,  that  your  sins  may  be 
blotted  out."  It  requires  therefore  a  marvelous 
stretch  of  the  imagination  to  make  this  word  the 
equivalent  of  the  passive,  "be  baptized."  The  ob- 
vious truth  is,  that  the  act  of  turning  is  the  act  of 
heart  faith,  which  is  required  in  order  to  the  blotting 
out  of  transgressions.  There  is  not  the  remotest  ref- 
erence to  water  baptism  in  the  whole  passage.  It  is 
simply  per  force  dragged  into  the  text  to  save  a 
theory.  This  may  be  written  down  as  a  case  of  re- 
mission of  sins  promised  without  water  baptism,  and 
obtained  by  five  thousand  by  faith.    See  Acts  iv,  4: 


SPECIAL  TERRITORY  OF  THE  THEORY. 


85 


"  Howbeit  many  which  heard  the  >vord  believed,  and 
the  number  of  the  men  was  about  five  thousand.'^ 

With  equal  explicitness  is  the  preaching  of  the 
apostle  Peter  to  the  household  of  Cornelius  in  antag- 
onism to  the  assumption.  Peter  preaches  faith  as  the 
condition  to  the  remission  of  sins.  Acts  43 :  "  To 
him  give  all  the  prophets  witness  that  through  his 
name  whosoever  believeth  in  him  shall  receive  re- 
mission of  sins.^'  And  instantly  upon  this  preaching 
^^tlie  Holy  Ghost  fell  upon  all  that  heard  the  word/' 
sealing  thus  "  the  remission  of  sins"  by  faith  without 
water  baptism,  for  the  baptism  came  after  this.  It  is 
plain,  therefore,  that  if  Peter  laid  down  the  uniform 
law  of  the  kingdom,  he  forgot  it  in  a  very  short  time. 

The  assumption  that  "/or  remission  of  sins 
means  "  in  order  to  remission  of  sins,"  is  always  made 
when  this  passage  is  cited  by  them.  Baptism  to  rep- 
resent, or  symbolize,  the  remission  of  sins  is  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins.  Baptism  as  a  sign  and  seal  of  re- 
mission of  sins  in  the  name  of  Christ  is  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins.  For  these  purposes  it  is  not /or  as  a 
condition  in  order  to  remission  of  sins.  But  it  is  re- 
plied that  whatever  repentance  is  for,  baptism  is  for, 
and  in  the  same  sense.  There  is  plausibility  in  this, 
and  hence  we  maintain  that  the  interpretation  is  en- 
tirely wrong  that  connects  baptism  and  repentance 
with  remission  of  sins  by  the  preposition  s/c,  rendered 
for.  The  "  name  of  Jesus  Christ "  and  "  the  re- 
mission of  sins  "  are  connected  by  for ;  and  this  was 


8G 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


the  purpose  of  the  apostle  to  bring  vivi<lly  before  the 
minds  of  these  Jews  that  remission  of  sins  was  in  the 
name  of  Christ  alone.  The  recognition  of  this  name 
for  the  remission  of  sins  was  the  essential  thing  for 
them.  And  that  recognition  ^vas  secured  by  heart 
faith  in  him,  or  upon  him. 

This,  to  the  writer,  very  apparent  principle  of  in- 
terpretation, leads  to  the  fact  that  the  text  contains 
an  ellipsis  that  should  have  been  supplied  in  trans- 
lating. ' ErA  Tw  d'^ofiazt  does  not  mean  the  same  as 
ere  ro  oi^ofia  in  Matt,  xxviii,  19.  The  first  means 
"  upon  the  name,^'  the  second  means  "  into  the  namey 
Alexander  Campbell  says:*  ^' Uazzi^io  and  izc  so 
perfectly  disagree  as  never  to  be  found  construed  in 
amity  in  any  Greek  author,  sacred  or  profane.*'  While 
we  do  not  accept  this  as  at  all  true,  yet  we  quote  it  as 
serving  to  show  that  he  could  not  reasonably  accept 
the  phrase  in  Acts  ii,  38,  as  a  substitute  for  "  baptism 
into  the  name  of  Christ,"  or  the  baptismal  formula. 

The  primary  meaning,  then,  of  izc  is  on  or  ?/;90?i. 
Then,  upon  the  name  of  Christ  is  believing  upon  his 
name.  There  are  quite  a  number  of  passages  that 
exemplify  this.  Luke  xxiv,  17:  "And  that  repent- 
ance and  remission  of  sins  should  be  preached  [i-r]  in 
his  name  among  all  nations,  beginning  at  Jerusalem." 
"Remission  of  sins  on  his  name"  is  remission  upon 
faith  in  his  name,  or  "  believing  on  his  name."  So 


*"0n  Baptism,"  v.  154. 


SPECIAL  TERRITORY  OF  THE  THEORY.  87 


Acts  iii,  16  :  "And  his  name,  through  [iTrc]  faith  in  his 
name,  hath  made  this  man  strong  whom  you  see  and 
know ;  yea,  the  faith  which  is  by  [o^«]  him  hath  given 
him  this  perfect  soundness  in  the  presence  of  you  alL" 
Peter,  in  describing  the  conversion  of  the  househokl 
of  Cornelius,  presents  it  as  an  exact  parallel  of  the 
Pentecostal  occasion.  Acts  xi,  17:  "Forasmuch  then 
as  God  gave  them  the  like  gift  as  he  did  unto  us,  who 
believed  on  [irrr]  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  what  was  I, 
that  I  could  withstand  God  V'  If  anything  could  give 
more  forcible  illustration  and  warrant  for  reading  ine 
rw  dvofiart  in  Acts  ii,  38,  "  believing  on  the  name  oi 
Jesus  Christ,^'  it  is  incomprehensible  as  to  what  it 
could  be.  Here  is  an  exact  parallel  of  the  phrase  in 
Acts  ii,  38,  with  "  believed just  where  we  claim  it 
should  be ;  and  furthermore,  the  inspired  apostle  tells 
us,  all  the  facts  of  the  cases  were  similar.  (See  Acts 
XV,  8,  9.)  For  im  in  connection  with  the  "  name  of 
Christ,'^  meaning  "believing  on  his  name,"  see  Acts 
ix,  42;  xvi,  31;  xxii,  19;  Rom.  iv,  5  and  24;  ix,  33; 
X,  11 ;  Phil,  iii,  9 ;  1  Tim.  i,  16-18 ;  iv,  10 ;  v,  5;  and 
numerous  other  passages. 

Acts  ii,  38,  is  the  only  passage  in  the  Scriptures 
where  baptism  and  the  name  of  Christ  are  connected 
with  the  preposition  int.  This,  then,  prepares  the  way 
for  the  proper  rendering  of  the  passage :  "  Repent," 
or  rather,  "  turn,  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you, 
[believing]  on  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins;  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the 


88 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISyr. 


Holy  Ghost/'  Xow,  Campbcllism,  in  the  use  of  this 
text,  always  reads  baptism  and  "/or  remission  of  sins'' 
together,  as  if  for  immediately  linked  these  two  to- 
gether; whereas  in  the  Greek  text  there  are  seven 
words  intervening,  and  one  of  these  words  is  a  con- 
nective by  which  baptism  is  linked  to  "  the  name  of 
Christ."  It  must  therefore  read,  "  be  baptized  upon 
aud  /or."  The  connective  power  of  for  is  fully  met 
in  joining  together  the  "name  of  Jesus  Christ"  aud 
"the  remission  of  sins."  Who  can  dispute  the  state- 
ment that  "  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  is  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins  ?"  If  this  is  so,  the  text  does  not 
teach  that  baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  sins.  If 
baptism  was  /or,  or  in  order  to,  remission  of  sins,  is  it 
not  remarkable  that  nothing  more  is  said  about  a  mat- 
ter so  important  as  this?  And  is  it  not  strange  that 
God  should  violate  this  unchangeable  order  in  the 
case  of  the  household  of  Cornelius? 

There  was  an  appropriateness  in  Peter's  enjoining 
upon  these  Jews  at  this  lime  the  outward  expression 
of  their  acceptance  of  Christ,  namely,  baptism.  The 
same  reason  did  not  exist  in  the  case  of  the  Gentiles, 
and  so  the  visible  badge  of  discipleship  was  not  en- 
joined upon  them  in  connection  with  their  acceptance 
by  faith  of  Christ  as  their  Savior.  It  was  sufficient 
to  exhort  them  to  believe  on  Christ,  and  baptism  as  a 
Christian  duty  would  be  attended  to  by  them  in  due 
time.  So  to-day  in  heathen  countries  our  missionaries 
exhort  to  baptism  as  a  visible  pledge  of  the  convert's 


SPECIAL  TERRITORY  OF  THE  THEORY.  89 


breaking  caste  with  heathenism.  The  circumstances 
cause  them  to  lay  a  stress  upon  it  as  a  matter  of  public 
profession  there  that  could  not  be  placed  upon  it  here. 

But  if  faith  comes  after  repentance — and  so  the 
Scriptures  uniformly  teach — it  comes  just  where  we 
have  put  it  in  this  passage ;  and  if  it  must  be  supplied 
at  the  juncture  indicated,  it  forever  separates  baptism 
and  the  remission  of  sins  as  antecedent  and  consequent, 
and  places  the  only  proper  Scriptural  antecedent  as  a 
condition  to  the  remission  of  sins  in  connection  with 
the  name  of  Christ. 

So  much  attention  has  been  given  to  this  passage, 
because  by  the  advocates  of  the  theory  of  baptismal 
remission  it  is  regarded  as  a  stronghold,  and  because 
we  believe  that  a  fair  and  reasonable  interpretation  of 
the  passage,  at  once  and  forever  places  it  upon  the  side 
of  spiritual  Christianity,  and  takes  it  out  of  the  hands 
of  those  who  make  the  mere  mode  of  a  ritual  act  the 
very  gate  to  salvation. 

8 


90 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

OTHER  SUPPOSED  PROOE-TEXTS. 

Thp:se  teachers,  by  a  process  peculiarly  their  own, 
seek  to  draft  into  the  service  of  their  theory  quite  a 
number  of  passages  of  Scripture  in  tlie  Acts  of  the 
Apostles  and  the  Epistles.  But  it  is  at  once  manifest 
that  their  interpretations  are  mostly  efforts  to  har- 
monize the  texts  in  question  with  the  dogma.  For 
if  the  doctrine  is  true,  it  is  fundamental  and  should 
often  appear  in  the  Scriptures.  Faith  as  the  condition 
to  justification  appears  on  almost  every  pa^e  of  the 
Gospels  or  Epistles.  If  baptism  is  an  equally  impor- 
tant condition,  it  ought  to  appear  as  often.  Hence  it 
need  not  be  a  matter  of  great  astonishment  if  these 
people  find  baptism  as  a  condition  to  salvation  where 
others  do  not. 

It  is,  however,  no  doubt,  a  matter  of  not  a  little 
surprise  that  an  attempt  should  be  made  to  prove  this 
dogma  by  the  case  of  Cornelius,  given  in  Acts  x, 
34-48.  But  Mr.  Campbell,  in  his  debate  with  Pro- 
fessor Rice,  actually  assumes  to  prove  his  doctrine  by 
this  instance ;  so  do  also  the  present  exponentii  of  the 
doctrine.    As  Campbell  presents  the  best  attempt  at 


OTHER  SUPPOSED  PROOF-TEXTS. 


91 


an  argument,  We  quote  him :  ^'  My  seventh  argu- 
ment is  deduced  from  the  conversion  of  Cornelius  and 
his  Gentile  friends.  His  excellent  moral  character, 
and  his  great  devotion  to  prayer  and  alms-deed,  had 
not  yet  saved  him.  The  message  received  from  God 
directed  him  to  send  for  the  man  who  had  the  keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  who  could  tell  him  words 
by  which  he  and  his  family  and  friends  '  might  be 
saved.^  I  need  not  relate  the  whole  story  as  it  is 
represented  in  the  tenth  and  eleventh  chapters  of  Acts. 
Peter,  in  relating  the  matter  afterward,  as  reported  in 
the  eleventh  chapter,  develops  more  fully  the  intention 
of  the  mission,  and  details  some  of  the  incidents  more 
at  length.  Particularly  in  the  fourteenth  verse  he  gives 
an  account  of  the  necessity  of  his  sermon — as  ^  words 
whereby  Cornelius  and  his  family  might  be  saved.' 
He  also  states  that  as  he  began  to  speak  these  words — 
as  soon  as  he  got  to  remission  of  sins  through  the 
name  of  the  Lord  Jesus — at  that  moment  the  Spirit, 
in  its  miraculous  attestations,  fell  upou  all  the  Gen- 
tiles present,  as  it  had  done  in  the  baptism  of  the 
Jews  on  Pentecost.  .  .  .  Soon,  then,  as  Peter  saw 
all  this,  he  asked  the  believing  Jews,  who  had  accom- 
panied him  from  Joppa,  whether  they  could  on  any 
account  refuse  them  the  grace  of  baptism.  No  de- 
murrer having  been  instituted,  he  commanded  them 
to  be  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.    Thus  also 


Campbell  and  Rice,"  p.  440. 


92 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


Avere  the  Gentiles  saved  by  faith,  repentance,  and 
baptism." 

This  extensive  quotation  is  given  that  the  reader 
may  seethe  adroit  manner  in  which  the  facts  are  modi- 
fied to  suit  a  theory.  At  each  step  from  the  out- 
start  there  is  a  slight  manipulation  of  the  narrative, 
so  that  in  the  outcome  the  theory  may  be  fitted  into  it. 

In  the  first  place,  the  word  saved  in  Acts  xi,  14, 
applied  to  Cornelius,  is  assumed  to  signify  the  par- 
don of  sins — his  justification  and  acceptance  with  God — 
while  it  is  a  fact  that  God  showed  Peter  that  Cornelius 
was  accepted  of  him  before  this.  Verse  15 :  "  What 
God  hath  cleansed,  that  call  not  thou  common."  And 
not  only  so,  but  Peter  recognized  the  divine  ac- 
ceptance of  Cornelius  in  this  language.  Verses  34, 35  : 
^'  Of  a  truth  I  perceive  that  God  is  no  respecter  of 
persons ;  but  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth  God  and 
worketh  righteousness  is  accepted  of  him."  So  al- 
ready Cornelius  was  accepted  of  God.  The  word 
saved  here  undoubtedly  means,  saved  from  Gentile 
superstition  and  ignorance — saved  to  the  conscious- 
ness of  acceptance  with  God,  under  the  broad  priv- 
ileges of  the  gospel.  But  suppose  that  saved  here 
does  mean  pardon  of  sin,  what  is  there  to  prove  that 
lie  was  not  saved  until  he  was  baptized  with  water? 
Did  not  the  Holy  Ghost  fall  on  them  before  they 
were  baptized  with  water  ?  And  was  not  this  divine 
seal  of  their  acceptance  with  God,  made  the  grounds 
for  their  baptism  with  water?    Again,  did  not  the 


OTHER  SUPPOSED  PROOF-TEXTS.  93 


apostle  declare  that  the  forgiveness  of  sin  was  pred- 
icated on  faith  in  Christ?  Verse  43:  ^^To  him  give 
all  the  prophets  witness,  that  through  his  name,  ivho- 
soever  believeth  in  him  shall  receive  remission  of  sins/^ 
At  this  juncture  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  upon  them, 
"  while  Peter  yet  spake  these  words/^  Xote  the 
adroitness  of  Mr.  CampbelFs  narration  of  this  circum- 
stance. He  represents  Peter  as  telling  his  brethren 
of  the  circumcision  at  Jerusalem,  that  as  he  "began 
to  speak  these  words — as  soon  as  he  got  to  remission 
of  sins  through  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus — at  that 
moment  the  Spirit  in  his  miraculous  attestations  fell 
upon  all  the  Gentiles  present."  Why  leave  out  re- 
mission of  sins  through  ''believing  in  himf^  These 
were  the  last  words  Peter  spoke  before  the  descent  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  AYhy  say  miraculous  attestations  " 
when  defining  this  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  Peter 
says,  chapter  xi,  17,  that  it  was  "the  like  gift  as  unto 
us  who  believed  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ that  is, 
unto  those  of  his  Jewish  brethren  who  received  the 
Holy  Ghost  at  Pentecost,  not  in  the  first  outpouring, 
but  that  which  afterward  came  upon  the  three  thou- 
sand— the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Since  followers  of 
Campbell  make  a  distinction  between  the  baptism 
and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  we  desire  that  this 
fact  shall  be  noted.  But,  for  the  argument's  sake,  it 
makes  no  difference  whether  it  is  considered  wholly 
miraculous  or  not;  the  truth  remains,  that  God  set  his 
seal  to  their  acceptance  before  baptism  by  water. 


94 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


Had  it  been  designed  to  furnish  a  positive  refuta- 
tion of  the  theory  of  C  anipbell,  we  are  unable  to  con- 
ceive how  it  could  be  more  perfectly  done  than  in  this 
instance.  How  that  can  be  regarded  as  a  condition 
to  the  remission  of  sin  that  does  not  come  until  after 
God  has  set  the  seal  of  his  approbation  on  the  be- 
liever, will  ever  remain  inexplicable  to  careful  think- 
ers. No  consequent  can  be  its  own  cause,  or  anteced- 
ent. The  use  of  this  instance  by  Mr.  Campbell  as  an 
argument  for  his  theory  looks  very  much  like  an  at- 
tem})t  by  sheer  audacity  to  break  somewhat  of  the 
force  of  the  argument  to  be  deduced  from  this  against 
his  scheme  of  doctrine. 

The  narration  of  the  baptism  of  Paul  is  uniformly 
presented  by  them  as  lending  su])port  to  the  dogma. 
Campbell  states  the  argument  in  this  form:*  "Paul 
was  now  a  believing  penitent,  a  proper  subject  for  the 
grace  of  baptism;  for  baptism  has  its  peculiar  grace 
as  well  as  prayer  or  fasting.  Paul  had  inquired  of  the 
Lord  what  he  should  do.  The  Lord  commissioned 
Ananias  to  inform  him.  He  went  to  Paul's  room,  .  .  . 
and  instantly  commanded  him  to  M)e  baptized  and 
wash  away  his  sins,  calling  upon  the  name  of  the 
Lord.'t  Now,  the  washing  away  (►f  his  sins  was 
certainly  to  be  accomplished  through  the  water  of 
l)aptism.  .  .  .  Neither  his  faith  nor  his  repentance 
had  washed  away  his  sins.   .  .   .   Li  any  other  case 


*  "  Campbell  and  Rire,"  p.  439.    t  Acts  xxii,  16. 


OTHER  SUPPOSED  PROOF-TEXTS. 


95 


the  literary  world  would  interpret  this  phrase  as  I 
have  done/^ 

1.  In  order  to  get  an  intelligent  understanding  of 
this  matter,  let  us  inquire,  first :  What  was  the  extent 
of  Ananias's  commission?  Was  he  commanded  to 
baptize  Paul?  If  baptism  is  conversion,  as  Campbell 
says,  then  it  was  the  most  important  part  of  Ana- 
nias's commission,  and  yet  he  does  not  mention  it  at 
all  in  connection  with  this  commission.  But  in  Acts 
ix,  17,  he,  going  in  unto  Saul  ^^and  putting  his  hands 
on  him,  said.  Brother  Saul,  the  Lord,  even  Jesus,  that 
appeared  unto  thee  in  the  way,  as  thou  camest,  hath 
sent  me  that  thou  mightest  receive  thy  sight,  and  be 
filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost. "  Now  note  carefully  the 
result  of  the  fulfillment  of  this  commission,  verse  18. 
"And  immediately  there  fell  from  his  eyes,  as  it  had 
been,  scales ;  and  he  received  sight  forthwith,  and 
arose,  and  was  baptized."  If  Ananias's  mission  was 
fulfilled  as  he  defined  it,  Paul  "  received  sight  and 
was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost. ''  Having  received 
this  baptism — the  true  baptism — he  was,  like  Corne- 
lius and  his  household,  baptized  with  water.  But  he 
did  not  first  receive  sight  at  the  laying  on  of  Ananias's 
hands,  to  be  then  baptized  with  water,  after  which  to  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  That  is  not  the  order 
of  the  text,  nor  is  it  the  order  of  the  divine  proced- 
ure ;  for  when  physical  sight  was  restored  by  the  di- 
vine interposition,  spiritual  sight  was  also  given. 
Again,  there  is  no  question  that  the  first  blessing  that 


96 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


came  to  Saul  after  the  imposition  of  Ananias's  hands, 
^vas  the  restoration  of  sight.  But  it  was  by  tlie  lay- 
ing on  of  the  apostle's  hands  often,  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  imparted.  (See  ch.  viii,  17;  xix,  6.) 
Hence  the  receiving  of  sight  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
cam(^  before  the  water  baptism. 

But  it  is  said  Saul  was  commanded  to  wash  away 
his  sins  by  baptism.''  (Acts,  xxii,  16.)  In  this  asser- 
tion there  are  three  assumptions  that  are  without 
proof:  1.  That  wash  away  thy  sins"  means  through 
baptism  performed  as  a  condition.  If  this  be  so,  the 
language  is  exceedingly  figurative.  It  will  not  be 
claimed  that  the  water  of  baptism  actually  washes  away 
sins.  If  it  does  not  literally  wash  away  sins,  it  must 
simply  stand  for  that  that  washes  away  sins,  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Ghost.  With  this  agrees  the  lan- 
guage of  the  apostle  himself,  1  Cor.  vi,  11  :  "And 
such  were  some  of  you :  but  ye  are  w  ashed,  but  ye  are 
sanctified,  but  ye  are  justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God;"  and  1  Cor. 
xii,  13;  "  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into 
one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether 
we  be  bond  or  free ;  and  have  all  been  made  to  drink 
into  one  Spirit." 

2.  Again,  it  is  assumed  that  this  is  w^ater  baptism 
of  which  Ananias  is  speaking.  The  w^ord  baptize  in 
the  text  is  in  the  middle  voice,  and  therefore  has  the 
reflexive  signification  of  that  voice.  A  literal  trans- 
lation would  be :  "And  why  tarriest  thou  ?  arise  and 


OTHER  SUPPOSED  PROOF-TEXTS. 


97 


baptize  thyself,  and  wash  away  thy  sins,  calling 
on  the  name  of  the  Lord."  Dr.  Dale  says,*  with 
reference  to  the  translation  above :  "  It  will  be  ob- 
served that  the  force  of  the  middle  voice  is  retained 
in  this  translation.  A  discriminating  use  of  words  in 
the  Scriptures  has  always  a  reason  for  it,  and  our 
business  is  not  to  change  the  statement  to  make  it  ac- 
cord with  some  other  statement,  but  to  accept  it  and 
seek  for  the  reason  of  it.  This  is  the  oilly  passage 
where  j^aTzzc^co  is  so  used  in  the  middle  voice.  There 
must  be  a  reason  for  it.  The  whole  transaction  is 
unique.  The  baptism  is  entirely  removed  from  or- 
dinary baptism.  There  is  nothing  in  the  teaching  of 
Scripture,  or  in  its  free  and  frequent  use  of  language, 
to  prevent  a  call  being  made  upon  Saul  to  ^  baptize 
himself  and  wash  away  his  sins  by  prayer.'  The 
translation  of  the  passage  from  the  Syriac,  by  Dr. 
Murdock,  is  as  follows:  ^\rise,  be  baptized,  and  be 
cleansed  from  thy  sins  while  thou  invokest  his  name.' 
Here  the  baptism  and  the  cleansing  from  sin  are  to  be 
secured  by  prayer,  and  ^ while'  the  prayer  is  being 
made." 

Etheridge's  translation  of  the  Syriac  renders  the 
passage  in  question  as  follows :  ^^Arise,  and  baptize, 
and  be  washed  from  thy  sins  while  thou  callest  his 
name."  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  Paul's  baptism 
was  a  baptism  that  he  secured  or  invoked  upon  him- 


*"  Christie  Baptism,"  pp.  106-107. 

9 


98 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


self  by  prayer,  and  not  water  baptism,  performed  by 
Ananias. 

But  thougli  we  should  regard  it  water  baptism,  the 
language  of  the  text  does  not  make  the  baptism  to 
wash  away  sins."  Alexander  Campbell  has  given 
us  the  key  to  the  proper  interpretation  of  the  text,  in 
his  remarks  on  Matt,  xxviii,  19:*  ''To  this  I  have 
not  found  an  exception.  For  example,  '  cleanse  the 
house,  sweeping  it,'  'cleanse  the  garment,  washing  it/ 
shows  the  manner  in  which  the  command  is  to  be 
obeyed,  or  explains  the  meaning  of  it.  Thus,  '  dis- 
ciple the  nations,  immersing  them.'  Does  Acts  xxii, 
16,  prove  an  exception  to  this  rule  of  construction? 
^AVash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the 
Lord.'  '  For  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  whosoever 
shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved.' "f 
It  is  very  plain,  therefore,  that  the  conditional  cause 
of  the  washing  away  of  sin  is  "calling  on  the  name 
of  the  Lord,"  which  is  the  expression  of  faith  in  him; 
and  by  this  we  are  baptized  into  Christ,  and  by  this 
baptism  our  sins  are  washed  away — a  baptism  that 
comes  by  the  prayer  of  faith.  Hence  Paul's  baptism 
through  prayer  was  a  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

But  Paul  drives  an  account  of  his  commission  in 
Acts  xxvi,  16-18:  "But  rise  and  stand  upon  thy 
feet,  for  I  have  appeared  unto  thee  for  this  purpose,  to 
make  thee  a  minister  and  a  witness,  both  of  these 


♦  "  Christian  System,"  p.  198.    tActs  ii,  21 ;  Rom.  x,  13. 


OTHER  SUPPOSED  PROOF-TEXTS. 


99 


things  which  thou  hast  seen,  and  of  those  things  in  the 
which  I  will  appear  unto  thee,  delivering  thee  from 
the  people  and  from  the  Gentiles,  unto  whom  now  I 
send  thee,  to  open  their  eyes  and  to  turn  them  from 
darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto 
God,  that  they  may  receive  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  an 
inheritance  among  them  which  are  sanctified  by  faith 
that  is  in  me/^ 

It  will  be  observed,  that  although  this  commission 
is  more  extensive  and  explicit  than  that  given  to  the 
other  eleven  apostles,  yet  there  is  not  one  word  said 
about  water  baptism.  If  water  baptism  occupies  the 
eminent  place  that  Campbell  claims  it  does  in  the  plan 
of  salvation,  as  the  act  of  inducting  the  sinner  into  the 
kingdom  of  God,  into  the  pardon  of  sin ;  and  if  it  is 
to  be  to  him  the  evidence  of  this  blessed  relation;  in 
other  words,  if,  as  Campbell  claims,  it  is  conversion 
itself, — is  it  not  singular  that  no  mention  whatever  is 
made  of  it  here?  Furthermore,  according  to  this 
scheme  of  doctrine,  it  is  the  act  of  faith — the  last  act 
of  faith  upon  which  pardon  or  remission  of  sin  is  pred- 
icated. It  therefore  should  be  mentioned  as  explicitly 
3iS  faith  is  mentioned  in  the  text.  It  is  clear,  there- 
fore, that  Paul  received  no  commission  to  baptize 
people  "into  the  remission  of  sins.'' 

There  is  still  something  more  explicit  from  the 
apostle  on  this  matter  of  water  baptism  than  its  omis- 
sion from  his  commission  as  the  great  apostle  of  the 
Gentiles.    In  1  Cor.  i,  14-17,  he  especially  disclaims 


100 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLTSM. 


being  sent  to  baptize,  and  puts  in  striking  antithesis 
preaching  the  gospel  and  baptizing,  saying  :  "  I  thank 
God  I  baptized  none  of  you  but  Grispus  and  Gains, 
lest  any  should  say  I  had  baptized  in  my  own 
name.  .  .  .  For  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize, 
but  to  preach  the  gospel/^  Does  this  language  com- 
port at  all  with  the  idea  that  Paul  had  himself  been 
saved  by  water  baptism ;  and  also  with  the  idea  that 
water  baptism  is  essential  to  salvation  ?  It  must  be 
remembered  that  Paul  was  the  founder  of  this  Church. 
He  says,  1  Cor.  ix,  1  ;  ''Are  ye  not  my  work  in  the 
Lord  Chapter  xv,  10  :  "  But  I  labored  more  abun- 
dantly than  they  all;''  yet,  according  to  this  theory, 
he  had  converted  only  a  very  few. 

More  specifically,  as  to  his  declaration  that  he  was 
not  sent  "  to  baptize  but  to  preach  the  gospel,"  how 
can  any  one  preach  the  gospel  of  salvation  to  sinners, 
and  yet  not  give  baptism  a  prominent  place,  if  Camp- 
bellism  is  the  true  doctrine  ?  It  does  not  fairly  meet 
the  issue  to  say  that  the  person  who  preaches  the 
gospel  need  not  necessarily  be  charged  with  the  ad- 
ministration of  baptism.  Paul  was  sent  unto  the 
Gentiles  that  they  "  might  receive  forgiveness  of  sins." 
To  hundreds  and  thousands  of  them  he  was  the  first 
gospel  preacher.  If  he  was  not  sent  to  baptize,  he 
was  inadequately  commissioned  for  his  great  mission- 
ary work.  No,  the  plain  and  obvious  truth  is,  that, 
in  the  estimation  of  the  apostle,  water  baptism  was 
something  that  could  be  administered  by  the  disciples 


OTHER  SUPPOSED  PEOOF-TEXTS. 


101 


when  the  believers  were  organized  into  Churches. 
With  Paul  it  was  only  an  outward  profession,  a 
Churchly  rite,  that  had  its  proper  place  in  the  visible 
Church,  but  was  not  an  essential  to  the  remission  of  sins. 

The  fact  that  the  apostles  and  their  co-laborers 
were  accustomed,  according  to  the  accounts  given  in 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  to  baptize  immediately  those 
who  professed  faith  in  Christ,  is  often  adduced  as 
proof  that  baptism  was  regarded  by  them  as  essential 
to  the  remission  of  sins.  Against  this  inference  there 
lie  several  unanswerable  objections.  These  were 
baptisijis  after  the  divine  a<3ceptance  had  been  mani- 
fested, as  in  the  case  of  the  household  of  Cornelius, 
Lydia  and  her  household,  the  Philippian  jailer  and  all 
his  house,  and,  in  one  other  instance,  a  baptism  where 
the  individual  was  still  "  in  the  gall  of  bitterness  aud 
in  the  bond  of  iniquity,^'  as  in  the  case  of  Simon  the 
sorcerer  (Acts,  viii) ;  and  baptism  where  the  persons 
had  already  been  baptized,  as  in  the  case  of  the  dis- 
ciples at  Ephesus.    (Acts  xix.) 

The  case  of  the  household  of  Cornelius  has  been 
very  thoroughly  considered  already.  As  to  Lydia's 
case,  we  are  specifically  told  (Acts  xvi,  14)  that  the 
Lord  "  opened  her  heart,  that  she  attended  unto  the 
things  spoken  by  Paul."  In  other  words,  God's 
Spirit  set  the  divine  seal  on  her  devotion  and  faith. 
As  to  the  Philippian  jailer,  subsequents  facts  indicate 
that  he  did  just  what  the  apostle  told  him,  in  verse 
31,  to  do,  "believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 


102 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


The  case  of  Simon  the  sorcerer  is  one  of  pecu- 
liar difficulty  for  Campbellisni,  for  Simon  had  all  the 
faith  this  system  requires.  He  believed  and  was 
baptized. (Verse  13.)  Yet  he  was  still  ''  in  the 
gall  of  bitterness  and  in  the  bond  of  iniquity."  It 
is  assumed  by  the  advocates  of  this  doctrine  that  he 
had  backslidden  in  the  intervening  time;  but  there 
is  not  one  particle  of  proof  of  it.  Simon  was  not 
a  penitent  believer  when  he  was  baptized,  and  there- 
fore, according  to  Campbellism,  was  not  baptized  at 
all ;  and  therefore  Peter  should  have  commanded  him 
to  repent  and  be  baptized. 

The  case  of  the  disciples  found  by  Paul  at  Eph- 
esus,  the  account  of  which  is  given  in  Acts  xix,  1-6, 
presents  still  more  insuperable  difficulties  for  the  sys- 
tem :  1.  They  were  disciples  (verse  1).  As  such 
they  were,  according  to  Campbell,  accepted  of  God 
and  saved.  2.  They  had  believed  (verse  2).  3. 
They  had  been  baptized  (verse  3.)  4.  They  were 
baptized  again  with  Christian  baptism  (verse  5). 
Xow,  if  John's  baptism  was  unto  remission  of  sins,  as 
Campbell  and  his  followers  claim,  and  if  Christian 
baptism  is  for  the  same  purpose,  here  is  a  clear  ex- 
ample of  persons  being  baptized  twice  for  the  same 
purjwse,  and  the  second  baptism  administered  without 
their  having  backslidden — they  were  "disciples." 
Either  John's  baptism  was  not  in  order  to  remission 
of  sins,  or  Christian  baptism  is  not  for  such  purpose, 


OTHER  SUPPOSED  PROOF-TEXTS. 


103 


or  neither  is  for  such  purpose.  And  the  last  is  with- 
out question  true. 

The  way  in  which  they  seek  to  avoid  this  di- 
lemma is  to  assert  that  these  persons  were  baptized 
by  John's  baptism  some  years  after  the  inauguration 
of  the  Christian  dispensation.  This  is  squarely  con- 
tradicted by  the  apostle's  declaration  in  verse  4 : 
"  John  verily  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  repentance, 
saying  unto  the  people  that  they  should  believe  on 
him  that  should  come  after,  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus." 
If  they  had  not  been  baptized  by  John,  why  this 
reference  to  the  baptizing  of  John  and  his  personal 
preaching?  The  shortest  method  on  the  supposi- 
tion above  would  have  been  to  tell  them  that  John's 
baptism  was  not  valid  after  Pentecost.  No ;  this  in- 
ference is  a  sheer  gratuity.  These  were  John's  dis- 
ciples, a  portion  of  that  immense  number  that  came 
to  John's  baptism,  and  had  truly  repented  at  his 
preaching,  and  like  other  Jews  had  found  their  way 
up  here  to  Ephesus. 

While  baptism  usually  was  administered  imme- 
diately by  the  apostles  to  their  converts,  the  facts  are 
that,  in  all  instances  recorded,  there  is  something  in 
the  context  indicating  that  the  baptism  was  not  per- 
formed as  a  condition  to  the  remission  of  sins.  The 
Philippian  jailer  is  a  typical  example.  If  he  obeyed 
the  apostle's  mandate,  he  was  saved  by  faith,  and 
baptized  afterward. 


104 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

BAPTISM  INTO  DEATH,  INTO  CHRIST,  AND  BAPTISMAL 
WASHINGS. 

Theke  are  certain  forms  of  expression  in  the 
epistolary  writings  of  the  Xew  Testament  Scriptures 
that  the  advocates  of  this  scheme  of  doctrine  make 
use  of  in  a  peculiar  and  somewhat  novel  sense  ;  a'^, 
for  example,  "in  Christ is  the  baptized  state; 
baptism  into  water  is  baptism  "into  Christ;"  bap- 
tism into  death  is  baptism  by  water,  or  rather  into 
water,  into  the  remission  of  sins;  and,  of  course, 
buried  by  baptism"  means  immersion. 

Mr.  Braden  presents  these  their  ideas  to  the  best 
advantage  in  the  briefest  compass.*  "  We  are  said  to 
be  separated  from  our  sins,  or  the  old  man,  in  baptism, 
and  so  put  on  the  new  man.  (Rom.vi ;  Col.  ii.)  .  .  . 
Again,  Christ  is  the  door  to  his  Church  or  kingdom. 
How  do  we  come  into  Christ,  or  enter  into  this  par- 
doned state?  By  baptism.  (Gal.  ii,  27.)  Again,  we 
are  said  to  be  justified  by  the  name  of  Christ.  (1  Cor. 
vi,  11.)  AVe  put  on  his  name,  and  have  his  name 
called  on  us  in  baptism." 

The  fallacy  in  this  statement  consists  in  the  fact 


♦"Hughey  and  Braden  Debate,"  p.  236. 


BAPTISM  INTO  DEATH. 


105 


that  false  assumptions  are  made  with  reference  to 
two  important  points:  First,  that  water  baptism  is 
here  referred  to  primarily ;  and,  second,  that  baptism 
into  Christ  and  into  the  name  of  Christ  are  one  aud 
the  same  thing. 

Let  us  give  close  attention  to  the  Scripture  lan- 
guage of  Rom.  vi,  3,  4  :  "Know  ye  not  that  so 
many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ  were 
baptized  into  his  death?  Therefore  we  are  buried 
with  him  by  baptism  into  death  ;  that  like  as  Christ 
was  raised  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father, 
even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life.'^  In 
the  first  place,  let  it  be  noted  that  baptism  into  Christ 
is  one  thing,  and  baptism  into  the  name  of  Christ 
quite  another.  The  Scriptures  never  confound  these 
two.  The  first  introduces  us  into  the  blessings  of 
salvation.  The  second  introduces  us  into  visible 
covenant  relation  with  Christ.  The  first  is  an  ex- 
perience ;  the  second  is  a  mere  outward  profession. 
Baptism  into  Christ  is  baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost; 
baptism  into  the  name  of  Christ  is  baptism  with 
water.  (Matt,  xxviii,  19  ;  Acts  xix,  5.)  This  is  fully 
illustrated  by  its  ancient  Old  Testament  counterpart, 
circumcision.  Rom.  ii,  28,  29  :  "For  he  is  not  a  Jew^, 
which  is  one  outwardly ;  neither  is  that  circumcision 
which  is  outward  in  the  flesh ;  but  he  is  a  Jew-, 
which  is  one  inwardly ;  and  circumcision  is  that  of  the 
heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter;  whose 
praise  is  not  of  men,  but  of  God.''    Put  beside  this 


106 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELUSM. 


language  of  the  apostle  the  parallel  passage  found  in 
Col.  ii,  11,  12:  In  whom  also  ye  are  cireunicised 
with  the  circumcision  made  without  hands,  in  putting 
off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh  by  the  circum- 
cision of  Christ:  buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein 
also  ye  are  risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the 
operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the 
dead."  "  Outward  circumcision  "  distinguished  a  Jew 
nationally,  physically;  "circumcision  of  the  heart'' 
distinguished  a  true  child  of  Abraham.  So  outward 
baptism  distinguishes  a  Christian  by  profession ;  but 
spiritual  baptism  distinguishes  him  as  a  real  child  of 
God. 

Every  reasonable  student  of  the  Scriptures  must 
admit  that  the  apostle  is  his  own  best  interpreter,  and 
that  what  he  has  said  upon  this  subject  must  be  inter- 
preted in  consistency.  He  must  not  be  made  to  con- 
tradict himself.  In  1  Cor.  xii,  13,  he  sets  forth  spe- 
cifically the  baptism  to  which  he  attributes  a  saving 
j)ower  and  efficacy :  "  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all 
baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gen- 
tiles, whether  we  be  bond  or  free;  and  have  been  all 
made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit.''  Let  it  be  observed 
that  this  is  a  formulated  doctrinal  statement  of  a 
universal  character.  "Jews  and  Gentiles,"  "bond 
and  free,"  certainly  comprise  all  the  race  of  men  with- 
out distinction.  And  again,  note  the  fact  that  the 
baptism  is  specifically  defined  as  "by  one  Spirit," 
and  that  this  baptism  inducts  into  "one  body,"  which 


BAPTISM  INTO  DEATH. 


107 


is  Christ.  Now  place  beside  this  Rom.  vi,  3  :  Know 
ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ  were  baptized  into  his  death?"  Xow, 
how  can  these  two  propositions  be  true^  and  baptism 
in  the  one  instance  be  by  water,  and  in  the  other  be 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  ? 

The  very  striking  character  of  the  metaphorical 
language  here  used  ought  to  prevent  the  careful  stu- 
dent of  this  Scripture  from  considering  the  baptism 
here  mentioned  water  baptism.  First,  it  is  "  into 
Christ second,  it  is  into  his  death;  and  third,  i)ito 
death.  Is  it  in  consonance  with  reason  to  attribute  to 
a  mere  outward  rite  such  an  all-embracing  spiritual 
influence  ? 

But  further  light  is  thrown  upon  it  by  the  parallel 
passage  in  Col.  ii,  11,  12.  Baptism  is  here  desig- 
nated as  ^^circumcision  made  without  hands,"  '^the 
circumcision  of  Christ."  It  is  evident  that  baptism 
and  circumcision  as  physical  facts  have  no  similarity. 
Their  similarity  must  be  in  signification.  But  the 
apostle  tells  us,  Rom  ii,  28,  29,  that  the  circumcision 
of  Christ  is  a  spiritual  circumcision.  A  "circumcision 
made  without  hands"  must  be  spiritual,  in  the  very 
nature  of  the  case.  Then  again,  we  are  also  told  that 
the  burial  and  resurrection  is  "through  faith  of  the 
operation  of  God ;"  that  is,  faith  in  us,  and,  because 
of  this,  wrought  by  the  Divine  Spirit.  "  For  by  one 
Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body."  AVe  fail  to 
conceive  how  the  inspiring  Spirit  could  have  more 


108 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


completely  hedged  about  these  passages  to  prevent 
meu  from  exalting  a  mere  rite  into  a  saving  instru- 
mentality. 

It  is  sought  to  break  the  force  of  this  chain  of  ar- 
gument by  giving  an  exceedingly  novel  interpretation 
or  rendering  to  1  Cor.  xii,  13.  We  are  gravely  told 
that  iv  kvi  TTviufiarc — by  one  Spirit — should  be  ren- 
dered "by  the  authority  of  one  Spirit."*  We  give 
this  individual  credit  for  seeing  the  difficulty  in  the 
^vay  of  the  theory,  else  it  is  impossible  to  conceive 
why  any  one  should  resort  to  such  methods  of  exe- 
getical  torture  and  such  special  pleading  to  save  his 
case.  When  he  undertakes  to  give  such  a  rendering 
of  the  passage,  he  drags  bodily  the  word  authority 
into  the  text.  In  every  passage  in  the  Scriptures 
where  baptism  by  the  Spirit  or  by  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
spoken  of,  the  phraseology  is  iv  rzui'j/iaTi.  What  non- 
sense to  attempt  to  translate  by  the  words  "  by  the 
authority  of,"  as,  for  example,  Acts  i,  5 :  "  Ye  shall  be 
l>aptized  by  [the  authority  of]  the  Holy  Ghost  not 
manv  days  hence."  Again,  Christian  l)aptism  is  not 
administered  "  by  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
but  by  the  command  of  Christ.  No,  this  is  a  mere 
makeshift  to  get  rid  of  the  force  of  an  unanswerable 
argument.  Paul  clearly  defines  what  baptism  into 
Christ  is  in  1  Cor.  xii,  13. 

Closely  related  to  the  above  argument  in  method 


*  Browder's  "  Pulpit,"  p.  77. 


BAPTISM  INTO  DEATH, 


109 


and  ideas,  is  an  argument  predicated  on  the  words, 
one  baptism,'^  in  Eph.  iv,  5.  It  is  maintained  that 
the  unity  of  the  baptism  consists  in  the  one  purpose 
for  which  it  was  instituted,  namely,  remission  of  sins. 
As  already  has  been  shown,  there  is  but  ^'one  bap- 
tism,'' but  that  baptism  is  spiritual  baptism.  By 
one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body/'  It 
may  be  asked,  What,  then,  do  you  do  with  water  bap- 
tism? It  is  but  the  symbol  of  baptism.  Jesus  said 
of  the  bread  of  the  eucharistic  feast,  "  Take,  eat,  this 
is  my  body,"  and  of  the  cup,  "  This  is  my  blood," 
while  he  only  meant.  This  symbolizes  or  represents 
my  body,  my  blood.  So  water,  properly  adminis- 
tered represents  baptism,  the  "one  baptism"  of  puri- 
fication from  sin;  baptism  by  "one  Spirit"  into  "one 
body,"  which  is  Christ.  Rom.  vi,  3,  4;  Col.  ii,  11,  12 ; 
1  Cor.  xii,  13;  Eph.  iv,  3-6,  all  refer  to  one  and  the 
same  baptism,  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

Eph.  V,  25,  26,  is  another  passage  that  is  uniformly 
presented  by  them  as  teaching  baptismal  remission. 
"Husbands,  love  your  wives,  even  as  Christ  also  loved 
the  Church,  and  gave  himself  fdr  it;  that  he  might 
sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water  by 
the  word."  In  order  to  make  this  to  teach  the  doc- 
trine, it  is  necessary  to  assume  that  the  phrase  "wash- 
ing of  water"  refers  to  baptism,  and  that  this  "  washing 
of  water"  is  a  figurative  expression  for  the  remission 
of  sins. 

Now,  in  the  first  place,  regardless  of  the  ordinary 


110 


ERRORS  OF  CAMFBELLISM. 


interpretatiou  given  this  by  commentators,  we  claim 
there  is  no  sufficient  ground  for  believing  that  water 
baptism  is  at  all  referred  to  in  the  passage.  Cleansing 
by  water,  when  baptism  is  out  of  the  question,  is  a 
characteristic  Scriptural  figure.  Psalm  li,  7  :  "  Purge 
me  with  hyssop,  and  I  shall  be  clean  :  wash  me,  and  1 
shall  be  whiter  than  snow.^^  Ezek.  xxxvi,  25  :  "  Then 
will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be 
clean :  from  all  your  filthiness  and  from  all  your  idols 
will  I  cleanse  you."  John  xiii,  10:  "He  that  is 
washed,  needeth  not  save  to  wash  his  feet,  but  is  clean 
every  whit."  Xow,  in  all  these  instances  cleansing  by 
water  is  referred  to,  and  yet  no  one  pretends  to  giv^e 
the  passages  a  physical  import.  The  washing  of  water 
stands  for  and  represents  spiritual  cleansing ;  but  it  is 
certainly  straining  the  figure  out  of  all  reason  to  make 
it  teach  that  the  Church  is  actually  washed  from  sin 
by  the  physical  washing  of  water. 

But  is  it  not  claiming  rather  much  for  water  bap- 
tism to  have  it  accomplish  all  this  cleansing  is  said  to 
accomplish  in  verse  27:  "That  he  might  present  it  to 
himself  a  glorious  Church,  not  having  spot  or  wrinkle, 
or  any  such  thing?"  Truly  that  would  be  a  won- 
derful achievement  secured  by  dipping  a  person  once 
under  the  water.  How  are  backsliders  cleansed  in 
this  Church?  for,  according  to  Campbellism,  they  be- 
long to  the  kingdom.  Certainly  their  former  cleans- 
ing will  not  suffice  for  subsequent  uncleanness;  yet 
they,  according  to  the  theory,  belong  to  this  spotless 


BAPTISM  INTO  DEATH. 


Ill 


Church.  But  Campbelh'sm  teaches  that  it  is  the  sinner 
that  is  cleansed  by  baptism.  The  promise  here  made 
is  Avith  reference  to  the  Church. 

In  1  Cor.  vi,  11,  Ave  have  clearly  defined  the  agency 
by  which  the  Church  is  purified  or  cleansed :  "  And 
such  were  some  of  you;  but  ye  are  washed,  but  ye  are 
sanctified,  but  ye  are  justified  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God.''  Here  the 
"washing  and  sanctifying''  spoken  of  in  Eph.  v,  26, 
are  said  to  be  accomplished  by  the  Spirit.  If  by  the 
Spirit,  then  not  by  water.  But  we  have  from  the 
Master  himself  a  complete  and  convincing  definition 
of  this  term  water,  John  vii,  38,  39  :  "  He  that  be- 
lieveth  on  me,  as  the  Scripture  hath  said,  out  of  his 
belly  "  (or  from  within  him)  "  shall  flow  rivers  of 
living  water.  But  this  he  spoke  of  the  Spirit,  which 
they  that  believe  on  him  should  receive." 

Again,  cleansing  is  spoken  of  in  Heb.  x,  20 ;  "  Hav- 
ing our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience,  and 
our  bodies  washed  with  pure  water."  It  needs  but 
a  glance  to  see  that  cleansing  from  the  defilement  of 
sin  is  attributed  to  sprinkling,  and  if  physical  sprink- 
ling is  referred  to,  it  will  at  one  dispose  of  immersion 
baptism.  On  the  other  hand,  if  washing  refers  to 
baptism,  it  only  cleanses  the  body,  not  the  soul,  not 
the  heart — the  sprinkling  cleanses  that.  It  is  very 
obvious,  therefore,  that  moral  or  spiritual  cleansing 
is  not  secured  by  the  performance  of  a  mere  rite.  It 
will  no  doubt  be  said  by  these  teachers,  "  We  do  not 


112 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


mean  that  the  water  washes  away  sins/'  If  so,  then 
the  language  that  attributes  spiritual  cleansing  to  water 
is  figurative.  If  figurative,  which  is  the  most  reason- 
able figure — that  it  stands  for  baptism  as  a  condition 
to  the  pardon  of  sin,  or  that  it  represents  the  cleans- 
ing influence  of  divine  grace  in  the  Holy  Spirit?  Un- 
questionably the  latter,  for  the  Lord  himself  has 
defined  the  figure,  again  and  again,  in  accordance 
therewith. 

An  attempt  is  often  made  to  draft  into  the  service 
of  this  doctrine  Titus  iii,  5  :  "  Xot  by  works  of  right- 
eousness which  we  have  done,  but  according  to  his 
mercy  he  saved  us,  by  the  washing  of  regeneration, 
and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.''  The  marvel  is 
that  they  should  attempt  to  adduce  the  text  in  support 
of  their  theory,  for  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  find  a 
more  positive  contradiction  of  their  fundamental 
tenet — -justification  by  works.  The  text  first  shows 
that  man  is  not  saved  by  his  own  works.  Now,  bap- 
tism is  either  a  work  of  righteousness,  or  it  is  not. 
If  it  is,  it  does  not  save  us,  for  this  is  especially  ex- 
cluded by  the  text.  If  it  is  not,  in  what  category 
shall  we  place  it?  It  is  always  one  of  the  'Svorks  " 
when  they  come  to  interpret  James  ii,  24.  To  this 
inconsistency  does  this  theory  of  positive  institutes 
drive  them. 

In  the  second  place,  the  salvation  which  is  denied 
to  our  acts,  is  attributed  to  God's  grace  or  "  mercy." 
This  "mercy"  is  made  manifest  to  us,  and  applied  by 


BAPTISM  INTO  DEA  TH. 


113 


liim,  "  by  the  Avasliing  of  regeneration  and  the  renew- 
ing of  the  Holy  Ghost. The  washing  of  regenera- 
tion and  renewing  of  tlie  Holy  Ghost  "  is  God's  Avork, 
not  man's,  in  any  sense;  neither  the  penitent's  indi- 
vidual act,  nor  that  of  another  person.  Mark  the 
words :  This  salvation  is  of  the  mercy "  of  the 
Father,  ^'  through  "  the  mediation  of  the  Son,  by" 
the  efficient  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  relative 
oy^  ichich,  can  not  agree  with  di^ayMv^waeco^,  reneiving; 
it  may  agree  with  Aouvpou,  washing,  or  with  IJi^eO/mTo^ 
Sipotj,  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  neuter  gender.  "AVhich" 
Holy  Ghost  in  his  washing  and  renewing  power  "  he 
shed  on  us  abundantly,"  is  the  thought  indicated  by 
the  grammatical  structure  of  the  text. 

In  like  manner,  Gal.  iii,  27,  is  interpreted  to  har- 
monize with  the  dogma,  "  For  as  many  of  you  as  have 
been  baptized  into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ."  The 
similarity  in  thought  and  expression  in  this  passage 
to  those  already  quoted — as  notably  Rom.  vi,  3,  4 ;  Col. 
ii,  11,  12;  1  Cor.  xii,  13 — if  properly  considered,  will 
lead  to  its  just  interpretation.  Baptism  into  Christ  is 
baptism  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  has  already  been  shown. 
"  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body." 
If  done  by  the  Spirit,  it  can  not  be  done  by  Avater. 
AVhat  right  any  one  has  to  read  the  text,  "  For  as 
many  of  us  as  have  been  baptized  [by  water]  into  Christ, 
have  put  on  Christ,"  is  past  comprehension  to  any 
one  who  takes  into  consideration  the  real  import  of 

the  term  baptism. 

^  10 


114 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


But  the  verse  immediately  preceding  the  text 
sets  forth  the  condition  fulfilled  by  us,  by  which  we 
become  children  of  God  :  "  For  ye  are  all  the  chil- 
dren of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus."  If  faith 
makes  us  children  of  God,  then  baptism  by  water 
does  not  make  us  such.  In  other  words,  if  we  are 
"children  of  God  by  faith/'  baptism,  which  comes 
subsequently,  does  not  have  any  part  in  the  matter. 
But  baptism  here  spoken  of  is  the  divine  act,  not 
ours.  The  context  here  is  exactly  similar  to  the  lan- 
guage of  1  Cor.  xii,  13:  "For  by  one  Spirit  are  we 
all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or 
Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free."  Gal.  iii, 
27,  28 :  "  For  as  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized 
into  Christ  have  put  on  Christ.  There  is  neither 
Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free,  there 
is  neither  male  nor  female :  for  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ 
Jesus."  Is  it  possible  that  one  of  these  cases  is  a 
manifestation  of  the  effect  of  water  baptism,  while  the 
other  is  the  effect  of  spiritual  baptism?  Or  is  iden- 
tically the  same  thing  accomplished  by  the  water 
that  is  accomplished  by  the  Spirit?  The  very  reason- 
able rule,  that  an  author  must  be  interpreted  in  con- 
sistency with  himself,  divests  this  dogma  of  all  sup- 
port from  the  teachings  of  the  great  apostle  to  the 
Gentiles.  The  apostle  did  not  attribute  the  same  re- 
sults to  physical  means  that  he  did  to  spiritual ;  the 
same  effect  to  a  mere  rite  that  belonged  to  the  agency 
and  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost.    That  he  attributed 


BAPTISM  INTO  DEATH. 


115 


induction  into  Christ  to  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit, 
can  not  for  one  moment  be  questioned. 

Eliminate  from  the  whole  attempt  at  argument 
the  false  assumptions  on  which  it  is  predicated,  and 
you  have  absolutely  nothing  left.  The  assumptions 
are:  1.  Whenever  baptism  is  spoken  of,  unless  it  is 
specifically  defined  as  by  the  Spirit,  water  baptism  is 
meant.  2.  Baptism  into  Christ  is  baptism  by  water, 
notwithstanding  the  apostle  affirms  the  contrary. 
3.  Washing,  as  applied  to  baptism,  means  the  wash- 
ing away  of  sin,  which,  however,  is  to  be  considered 
figurative  enough  to  get  rid  of  physical  washing,  and 
make  it  only  become  a  metaphorical  expression  for 
the  remission  of  sins  by  baptism ;  that  is,  the  wash- 
ing of  regeneration  "  means  the  washing  of  justifica- 
tion or  pardon. 


116 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


CHAPTER  X. 

SALVATION  BY  BAPTISM,  BY  WORKS,  BY  "  OBEDIENCE 
OF  FAITH." 

Peter,  to  whom,  according  to  this  scheme  of  doc- 
trine, the  keys  of  the  kingdom  were  given,  and  who, 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  opened  its  doors  and  laid 
down  its  constitution  for  all  subsequent  ages,  is 
claimed  to  have  set  forth  the  saving  efficacy  of  bap- 
tism by  water  in  his  first  epistle  to  the  general 
Church,  ch.  iii,  21 :  The  like  figure  whereunto  bap- 
tism doth  also  now  save  us  (not  the  putting  away  of 
the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  con- 
science toward  God),  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ.'^  On  this  passage  Campbell  says :  *  ^'  But 
Peter  strongly  maintains  his  Pentecostal  address.  He 
says,  speaking  of  Noah's  salvation  in  water,  and  by 
water,  that  we  are  saved  in  water,  and  by  water,  as 
Noah,  in  the  ark,  was  saved  through  the  Deluge,  to 
which  salvation,  neither  to  the  ark  nor  to  the  water 
alone,  baptism  corresponds  as  an  antitype  to  a  type,  in 
saving  those  who  enter  the  water,  as  Noah  entered 
the  Deluge,  relying  on  God's  promises."  These  ideas 
are  with  marked  uniformity  voiced  by  all  the  disciples 


♦"Campbell  and  Rice,"  p.  558. 


SA  L  VA  TION  BY  BAP  TISM. 


117 


of  Campbell.  They  all,  in  the  same  confused  way,  set 
forth  at  one  time  the  water  of  the  Deluge,  and  at  an- 
other the  ark  on  the  water,  as  the  type  of  the  salvation 
the  sinner  secures  in  or  through  the  water  of  baptism. 
They  also  all  agree  in  interpreting  the  word  iTzepco- 
TYjfia  (^^  answer  as  signifying  the  requirement  or 
condition*  of  a  good  conscience,  meaning  in  order  to 
a  good  conscience.  And  they  variously  interpret  "the 
putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh as  the  washing 
away  of  physical  filth,  and  then  again  the  removal  of 
ceremonial  uncleanness.f  There  is  a  want  of  agree- 
ment even  in  the  same  writer,  as  for  example  Dungan. 

The  passage  in  question  is  one  quite  difficult  of 
interpretation,  and  it  is  not  to  be  marveled  at  that 
there  should  be  disagreement  in  interpretation ;  but 
it  is  not  a  little  marvelous  that  there  should  be  such 
confident  dogmatizing  founded  upon  this  passage  as 
that  manifested  by  Mr.  Campbell  and  his  followers. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been  as  positively  cited  as 
proving  that  baptism  does  not  save  us  in  any  but  a 
symbolical  sense.  It  does  not  "  put  away  the  filth  of 
the  flesh,'^  but  is  simply  the  answer  that  a  good  con- 
science gives  to  the  fact  of  a  salvation  already  secured 
through  faith  in  Christ. 

But  it  seems  possible  to  the  writer  to  give  an  in- 
terpretation which  will  make  the  apparent  conflict 


*Braden,  in  "  Hughey  and  Braden's  Debate,"  p.  259. 
tD.  R.  Dungan,  ''On  the  Rock,"  pp.  195  and  333. 


118 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


hot  wcen  the  principal  and  parenthetic  clauses  to  coalesce 
into  harmony.    The  whole  matter  turns  on  the  sig- 
nification attached  to  w  xal.    If  we  construe  it  as  re- 
ferring to  the  word  uoazo':  (water,)  and  ad()j)t  the 
conjectural  reading  of  some  critics,  substituting  o  for 
(J,  then  there  will  be  some  ground  for  the  generally 
received  interpretation  that  the  passage  refers  to  bap- 
tism by  >vater.    But  if  we  construe  oJ  ya't  in  connec- 
tion with  the  word  U'uv'jfui.Tt  (Spirit),  which  is  found 
in  verse  18,  the  whole  difficulty  is  at  once  removed  : 
"For  Christ  once  suffered  for  sins,  the  just  for  the 
unjust,  that  he  might  bring  us  to  God,  being  put  to 
death  in  the  fiesh,  but  quickened  by  the  S])irit  \iu 
by  xchich  also  he  went  and  preached  unto  the  spirits  in 
prison;  wdiich  sometimes  were  disobedient,  when  once 
the  long-suffering  of  God  waited  in  the  days  of  Xoah, 
while  the  ark  was  j)reparing,  wherein  few,  that  is, 
eight  souls  were  saved  [di  uoazo':]  through  the  water, 
\_(J  xac].    By  which  [Spirit]  also  baptism,  the  antitype, 
now  saves  us  (not  of  the  flesh,  the  putting  away  of 
filth,  but  the  answer  to  God  of  a  good  r(»ns('ience) 
througli  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ/'    With  one 
exce})tion,  the   rendering  above  follows  the  Greek 
construction ;  baptism  is  placed  before  antityj>e. 

If  we  construe  the  relative  as  referring  to  the 
word  water  in  the  preceding  verse,  and  substitute  the 
reading  o  for  <//,  we  have  this  absurdity,  that  the  apostle 
represents  the  water  of  the  flood  as  tlie  medium  of 
salvation,  while  in  fact  it  was  the  medium  of  dcfttruc- 


SALVATION  BY  FAITH. 


119 


tion,  and  Noah  and  his  family  were  saved  through  it 
by  the  ark.  Baptism  is  not  the  antitype  of  the  Flood, 
but  of  the  ark ;  and  if  this  be  so,  and  it  can  not  well 
be  questioned,  the  relative  does  not  therefore  refer  to 
the  looter.  If  it  does  not,  it  must  refer  to  the  Holy 
Spirit.  The  apostle  declares  that  Jesus  was  quick- 
ened [or  raised  from  the  dead]  by  the  Spirit,"  verse 
18.  And  in  verse  21  our  attention  is  again  called  to 
his  resurrection,  as  to  our  being  saved  through  it  by 
baptism.  The  antitype  baptism  doth  also  now  save 
us  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.'^  In  other 
words,  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead  by  the 
Spirit,  we,  by  the  same  Spirit  in  baptism,  are  saved 
through  the  resurrection  of  Christ. 

How  water  baptism  can  save  us  by  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  Christ,  is  past  all  comprehension.  The 
advocates  of  exclusive  immersion  think  that  baptism 
was  designed  to  represent  a  burial  and  resurrection; 
but  to  say  that  baptism  saves  us  by  a  representation  of 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  only  covers  part  of 
their  idea  as  to  what  baptism  represents,  and  does  not 
make  a  very  lucid  exposition  of  the  passage.  And 
yet  this  is  the  only  conceivable  exposition  that  can  be 
given  from  their  stand-point. 

In  order  to  make  clear  our  view  of  the  teaching 
of  this  difficult  passage — not  difficult  because  it  offers 
any  support  to  Campbellism,  but  because  of  the  ap- 
parent conflict  between  the  parenthetic  clause  and  the 
principal  sentence — we  will  give  a  free  paraphrase  of 


120 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


it :  By  which  Spirit  also,  baptism,  the  antitype  of 
the  ark,  now  saves  ns  (not  of  the  flesh,  the  putting 
away  of  ceremonial  taint,  but  the  answer  of  a  good 
conscience  toward  God)  through  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  Christ/^  It  will  be  seen  that  the  baptism  spoken 
of  is  spiriHial  baptism,  which  saves,  but  not  in  putting 
away  ceremonial  taint,  as  Jewish  purifications  and 
baptisms  were  supposed  to  do,  but  the  response  of  a 
good  conscience  to  God — that  is,  the  witness  of  a  good 
conscience  to  God — through  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

Attention  has  several  times  been  called  to  the 
fact  that  the  fundamental  tenet  of  Campbellism  is  a 
system  of  justification  by  works.  In  support  of  this 
doctrine,  an  extensive  use  is  made  of  the  language 
of  St.  James,  chapter  ii,  21-14:  Was  not  Abraham 
our  father  justified  by  works  when  he  offered  up  Isaac, 
his  son,  upon  the  altar  ?  Seest  thou  how  faith  wrought 
with  his  works,  and  by  works  was  faith  made  per- 
fect? And  the  Scripture  was  fulfilled,  which  saith, 
Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  imj)uted  unto  him 
for  righteousness,  and  he  was  called  the  Friend  of  God. 
Ye  see  how  that  by  works  a  man  is  justified,  and  not 
by  faith  only.''  It  is  at  once  assumed  that  James  is 
speaking  of  the  justification  of  the  sinner — justification 
in  the  sense  of  the  ])ardon  of  sin,  and  then  in  order  to 
make  the  plural  works,"  in  addition  to  faith,  re- 
pentance, confession,  and  baptism  are  each  styled  a 
work.    Of  course,  all  this  proceeds  upon  the  unscrip- 


SALVATION  BY  BAPTISM. 


121 


tural  theory  that  repentance  comes  after  faith,  and 
thatan  oral  confession  of  "I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  Son  of  God/'  is  required  as  a  part  of  the  con- 
dition. 

The  justification  of  which  St.  James  is  speaking,  is 
the  justification  or  approval  of  the  child  of  God,  long 
subsequent  to  his  justification  as  a  penitent  sinner,  and 
his  adoption  into  the  family  of  God.  Let  it  not  be 
forgotten  that  the  question  is,  What  must  a  sinner  do 
to  be  saved  ?  not  Avhat  the  child  of  God  must  do  to  re- 
tain the  divine  favor.  The  language  of  St.  James 
taken  in  its  entirety  shows  that  he  is  speaking  of  faith 
and  works  in  a  Christian.  Verses  14-17:  "What 
do'th  it  profit,  my  brethren,  though  a  man  say  he  hath 
faith  and  have  not  works?  Can  faith  save  him?  If 
a  brother  or  sister  be  naked  and  destitute  of  daily  food, 
and  one  of  yoic  say  unto  them.  Depart  in  peace,  be  ye 
warmed  and  filled,  notwithstanding  ye  give  them  not 
those  things  which  are  needful  to  the  body,  what  doth 
it  profit?  Even  so,  faith  if  it  hath  not  works  is  dead, 
being  alone.''  The  words  "brethren,"  a  "brother  or 
sister,"  and  "one  of  you,"  clearly  indicate  that  the 
apostle  is  speaking  of  the  faith  and  good  works  of 
Christians,  and  not  of  penitent  sinners.  Duties  are  con- 
stantly required  of  Christians  that  are  not  required  of 
penitent  sinners  as  conditions  to  pardon.  The  works 
indicated  here  are  works  of  charity,  and  not  confession, 
repentance,  baptism ;  and  logical  consistency  requires 
those  who  claim  that  the  apostle  teaches  that  good 

11 


122 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


works  are  necessary  to  partlon  of  sin,  to  show  just 
what  and  how  many  are  the  works  required. 

But  the  verses  ordinarily  cited — -verses  21-24 — sim- 
ply set  forth  Abraham's  justification  as  a  servant  of 
the  Most  High,  about  twenty-two  years  after  the  time 
that  the  Scriptures  said,  A])raham  believed  God,  and 
it  was  counted  unto  him  for  righteousness.'^  When 
was  Abraham  justified  by  works?  When  he  offered  up 
Isaac.  (Verse  21.)  AVhen  was  his  faith  counted  unto 
him  for  righteousness  ?  When  he  believed  God's  prom- 
ise made  to  him  in  Haran.  All  that  can  be  made  out  of 
the  passage,  to  give  any  color  of  support  to  the  dogma, 
is  contained  in  the  expression,  "  a  man" — Ye  see 
then  how  that  by  works  a  man  is  justified,  and  not  by 
faith  only."  The  expression  is  construed  to  mean 
the  sinner,  notwithstanding  the  example  under  con- 
templation is  righteous  Al)raham,  after  long  years  of 
faithfulness.  ^Vhen  Abraham  believed  God,  and  it 
was  imputed  unto  him  for  righteousness,"  what  was 
the  work  he  then  performed  ?  According  to  Campbell's 
termiuolojrv,  what  was  the  act  of  faith  ? 

If  Campbell's  interpretation  of  this  passage  is  cor- 
rect, then  there  is  a  positive  contradiction  hereof  what 
Paul  teaches  in  Rom.  iv,  2,  3:  "For  if  Abraham 
were  justified  by  works,  he  had  whereof  to  glory;  but 
not  before  God.  For  what  saith  the  Scripture?  Abra- 
ham believed  God,  and  it  was  counted  unto  him  for 
righteousness."  See  also  the  rest  of  the  chapter,  and 
chapter  iii,  19-31  ;  Gal.  ii,  16,  and  iii,  6-11.  These 


SALVATION  BY  BAPTISM. 


123 


passages,  with  an  inviucible  clearness,  evince  that 
Abraham  was  justified  by  faith  without  works,  and  that 
the  sinner  is  so  justified ;  but  it  is  plain  that  Paul  is 
talking  of  another  justification  from  James.  Paul  is 
treating  of  the  pardon  of  the  sinner,  James  of  the  sub- 
sequent approval  of  the  righteous. 

This  is  the  only  reasonable  method  of  reconciling 
James  and  Paul.  It  is  customary  with  these  teachers 
to  ridicule  the  idea  that  a  reconciliation  is  necessary ; 
but  when  compelled  to  attempt  one  in  order  to  vindi- 
cate their  scheme  of  doctrine  from  the  charge  that  the 
Scriptures  are  brought  by  them  into  conflict  (for  Paul 
says  Abraham  was  justified  by  faith  without  works, 
and  James  says  he  was  justified  by  faith  and  works; 
and  here  is  conflict  if  both  mean  justification  in  the  same 
sense),  they  say  that  Paul  is  talking  about  justification 
under  the  law  of  Moses,  and  James  of  justification 
under  the  Christian  dispensation.*  Mr.  Braden,  when 
pressed  by  Dr.  Hughey  on  this  point,  says :  "  Let  us 
look  at  Paul's  argument.  He  had  proved  that  neither 
Jew  or  Gentile  could  be  saved  by  their  works,  for  one 
had  not  lived  up  to  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  other 
had  not  kept  the  Jewish  law.  How  Avere  they  to  be 
saved?  By  faith  in  Christ,  without  the  deeds  of  obedi- 
ence to  the  law  of  nature  or  the  Jewish  law.  '  But,' 
says  the  Jew,  ^how  can  he  justify  a  man  without 
obedience  to  the  Mosaic  law  ?'    ^  Why,'  says  Paul, 


*  Braden  in  debate  with  Hughey,  p.  252. 


124 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


'  he  justified  Abraham  without  obedience  to  this  law 
l)efore  the  law  was  given,  for  the  law  was  not  given. 
In  like  manner  he  has  done  away  with  the  law  now,  and 
he  justifies  men  after  the  law,  without  the  deeds  of  the 
law,  as  he  did  before  the  law.^  " 

It  is  the  broadest  possible  stretch  of  charity  to  call 
this  an  explanation  or  a  reconciliation.  It  is  an  as- 
sumption without  any  proof  whatever,  that  the  apostle 
is  treating  of  the  impossibility  of  the  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles being  justified,  the  one  under  the  law  of  nature, 
and  the  other  under  the  Jewish  law,  because  neither 
had  kept  the  law.  Those  who  were  justified,  of  either 
Jews  or  heathen,  were  either  justified  by  faith  without 
works,  or  by  faith  and  works.  If  Jews  were  justified 
without  obedience  to  the  Jewish  law,  as  Mr.  Braden 
says,  then  the  tlieory  of  Campbellism,  that  the  Jews 
were  justified  by  obedience  to  positive  institutes,  falls 
to  the  ground. 

Equally  groundless  is  the  assumption  that  Paul  is 
showing  (Romans  iii  and  iv)  the  impossibility  of 
Abraham's  justification  by  the  law,  because  it  had  not 
yet  been  given.  There  is  not  one  word  said  in  the 
whole  of  the  apostle's  argument  about  the  law  of 
Moses,  or  any  law  given  by  Moses.  The  law  of  cir- 
cumcision is  the  only  law  mentioned,  and  this  is  men- 
tioned in  order  to  exclude  it  from  any  part  in  Abra- 
ham's justification.  "  Deeds  of  the  law  "  and  "  works  " 
mean  the  same  thing,  and  comprehend  all  acts  of 
obedience  whether  by  Jew  or  Gentile,  and  are  ex- 


SALVATION  BY  BAPTISM. 


125 


eluded  from  having  to  do  with  the  remission  of 
sins  that  are  past."  (Verse  25.)  And  when  the 
apostle  sums  up  the  argument  in  chapter  iii,  28-30, 
he  makes  it  as  clear  as  a  sunbeam  that  he  is  treating 
of  justification  under  the  gospel.  Therefore,  we  con- 
clude that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith,  without  the  deeds 
of  the  law.  Is  he  the  God  of  the  Jews  only  ?  Is  he 
not  also  of  the  Gentiles  ?  Yes,  of  the  Gentiles  also. 
Seeing  that  it  is  one  God  which  shall  justify  the  cir- 
cumcision by  faith,  and  the  uncircumcision  through 
foith.'^  Jews  and  Gentiles  are  justified  by  faith  with- 
out works,  now  and  for  all  time.  The  justification 
spoken  of  is  a  present  tense  and  a  future  justifica- 
tion, and  is  emphatically  without  works.  When  Mr. 
Braden  says,  "  Paul  nowhere  teaches  that  either  saint 
or  sinner  can  be  justified  by  faith  alone  without  works 
or  obedience  to  the  law  of  Christ,"  he  asserts  that 
which  squarely  contradicts  the  facts ;  for  Paul  asserts 
that  truth  in  the  passages  under  consideration,  and 
does  it  in  the  very  words  of  this  denial,  in  Gal.  ii,  16, 
Revised  Version :  "  Yet  knowing  that  a  man  is  not 
justified  by  the  works  of  the  law,  save  [marginal  read- 
ing, '  but  only through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ."  Notice, 
"a  man" — not  a  Jew,  but  a  man,  any  man — is  not 
justified  "  by  works  of  the  law,"  present  tense,  thereby 
indicating  its  universal  application.  Therefore  Paul 
is  treating  of  the  justification  of  the  penitent  sinner, 
under  the  Christian  dispensation,  and  he  declares  it 
is  not  by  works ;  and  if  James  is  speaking  of  the  same 


12(3 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


thing,  there  is  a  square  contradiction  between  them, 
and  no  jugglery  with  Avords  will  get  rid  of  it.  That 
must  be  a  false  scheme  of  doctrine  that  will  put  the 
inspired  writers  into  contradiction. 

Again,  the  inconsistency  of  Campbell  and  his  dis- 
ciples in  claiming  the  works "  spoken  of  by  St. 
James  as  grounds  of  justification  in  the  sense  of  pardon, 
is  seen  in  this,  that  they  mean  in  reality  but  one  work. 
"  The  obedience  of  faith,"  "  obeying  the  gospel,"  and 

obeying  that  form  of  doctrine,"  are  expressions  with 
them  that  mean  but  one  thing.    Campbell  says:^' 

That  it  is  not  faith,  but  an  act  resulting  from  faith, 
which  changes  our  state."  Note  "(7?i  ac<"  singular. 
After  quoting  Rom,  i,  5;  x,  8;  xvi,  26 ;  1  Thess.  i,  8; 
1  Peter  iv,  17;  Acts,  vi,  7 — passages  in  which  the  ex- 
pressions obedience  of  faith  "  and  "obeying  the  gos- 
pel "  occur — he  says  :  f  "  From  these  sayings  it  is  un- 
questionably plain  that  either  the  Gospel  itself,  taken 
as  a  whole,  is  a  command,  or  that  in  it  there  is  a 
command,  through  the  obedience  of  which  salyation 
is  enjoyed."  Further  on  he  says:  "This  act  is  some- 
times called  immersion."  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that 
they  mean  but  one  work  as  tlie  "  obedience  of  faith." 
If  this  be  so,  then  the  quotation  of  St.  James  proves 
that  we  are  justified  by  acts  of  faiths  and  not  an  act 
of  faith,  as  Campbell  teaches. 

But  do  these  phrases — "  obedience  of  faith,"  "  obey- 


*"  Christian  System,"  p.  193.    Md.  p.  192. 


SALVATION  BY  BAPTISM. 


127 


ing  the  gospel,"  and  "  obeying  that  form  of  doctrine" — 
mean  baptism  ?  Let  us  take  a  few  passages  as  samples. 
Rom.  i,  5  :  "  By  Avhom  we  have  received  grace  and 
apostleship  for  obedience  to  the  faith  among  all  na- 
tions for  his  name."  Substituting  baptism  for  ^'  obe- 
dience to  the  faith/'  will  make  manifest  the  absurdity. 

By  whom  we  have  received  grace  and  apostleship 
for  baptism  among  all  nations."  1  Peter  iv,  17: 
^'  What  shall  the  end  be  of  them  that  obey  not  the 
gospel  [are  not  baptized]?"  Rom.  vi,  17:  ^^But  ye 
have  obeyed  from  the  heart  that  form  of  doctrine 
[baptism]  which  was  delivered  unto  you."  Well  may 
the  reader  exclaim,  What  nonsense !  but  it  is  the  non- 
sense of  the  theory.  The  obedience  of  faith  "  is  all 
manner  of  obedience  springing  from  faith;  and  it  is 
Christian  fidelity  that  it  defines,  and  not  the  condi- 
tions the  sinner  performs  in  order  to  his  salvation. 
"  Form  of  doctrine,"  r^/Toc,  type,  example,  or  pattern; 
therefore  pattern  of  Christian  teaching  in  general.  It 
requires  a  fertile  imagination  to  convert  dcdayf^^,  doc- 
trine, into  immersion,  or  runo^  didayr^^  into  immer- 
sion, and  yet  this  is  Avhat  the  theory  does  every  time 
this  passage  is  cited  as  having  reference  to  baptism. 
Water  baptism  may  be  a  tutco^,  type  of  Holy  Ghost 
baptism  ;  but  it  reaches  the  very  superlative  of  absurd- 
ity to  call  water  baptism  a  type  of  doctrine. 


128 


ERRORS  OF  CAMRBELLISM. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

CAMPBELL'S  SEVEN  CAUSES  OF  JUSTIFICATION. 

In  order  to  refute  the  evangelical  doctrine  of  jus- 
tification by  faith  alone,  that  is,  by  faith  without  works, 
Campbell  and  his  followers  are  wont  to  call  attention 
to  the  fact  that  ju.stitication  is  ascribed  in  the  Scrip- 
tures to  seven  different  causes;  namely,  * /ca'M  (Rom. 
V,  1),  grace  (Rom.  iii,  24),  by  his  blood  (Rom.  v,  9), 
works  (James  ii,  21),  in  or  by  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  (1  Cor.  vi,  11),  by  Christ  (Gal.  ii,  16),  6^  knowl- 
edge (Isa.  liii,  11).  Five  of  these  so-called  causes  of 
justification  are  simply  one  cause — the  meritorious 
cause  of  the  grace  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  this 
leaves  but  faith  and  u-orks  as  possible  causes  of  justi- 
fication. All  this  confusion  is  removed  when  we  con- 
sider that  the  question  of  controversy  is  only  about 
the  conditional  cause  of  the  justification  of  the  sinner, 
and  nothing  else.  It  is  not  what  Christ  has  done, 
what  the  Father  has  done,  or  what  the  Holy  Ghost 
has  done  or  must  do,  but  what  must  the  sinner  do  as 
a  condition  to  pardon  or  justification.  And  where 
Mr.  Campbell  says,  "  He  that  selects  faith  out  of  seven 
must  either  act  arbitrarily  or  show  his  reason  ;  but  the 


*  "  Christian  System,"  p.  247. 


SEVEN  CAUSES  OF  JUSTIFICATION. 


129 


reason  does  not  appear  in  the  text.  .  .  .  Why, 
then,  assume  that  faith  alone  is  the  reason  of  our  jus- 
tification?'^ he  either  misapprehends  the  whole  ques- 
tion, or  is  trying  to  confuse  the  matter  in  the  minds 
of  his  readers.  There  are  but  two  of  these  seven  causes 
that  with  any  show  of  reason  w^hatever  can  be  called 
a  condition,  and  one  of  these  two  "  works  is  espe- 
cially excluded  by  the  apostle  Paul  in  Rom.  chapters 
iii  and  iv,  and  Gal.  ii,  16,  and  iii,  6-11.  If  any  one 
should  assert  that  faith  alone  is  the  cause  meritorious, 
efficacious,  and  conditional  of  the  sinner's  justification, 
Mr.  Campbell  would  have  some  reason  for  this  objec- 
tion ;  but  all  that  is  claimed  is,  that  faith  alone  is  the 
conditional  cause,  or  the  condition  upon  which  justifi- 
cation is  granted  to  the  sinner. 

The  writer  once  had  a  discussion  of  three  days 
with  a  disciple  of  Alexander  Campbell,  on  the  subject 
of  justification,  and  although  the  proposition  was. 
Faith  in  Christ  is  the  only  condition  necessary  to 
the  justification  of  the  penitent  sinner,"  yet  each  time 
his  respondent  spoke  he  insisted  that  "  Faith  alone," 
in  the  terms  of  the  proposition,  meant  faith  without 
repentance,  without  grace,  without  the  blood  of  Christ, 
etc.,  through  the  entire  catalogue,  according  to  Camp- 
bell. The  only  conceivable  reason  for  this  persistent 
misrepresentation  of  the  issue  is,  that  baptism  may  be 
brought  in  under  works  "  as  a  cause  of  the  sinner's 
justification. 

All  that  Mr.  Campbell  has  to  say  about  "  moving," 


130 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBF.LLISM. 


"  efficient,"  procuring/'  "disposing''  "formal/'  "im- 
mediate/' and  "concurring"  causes  is  so  much  in  the 
direction  of  confusing  a  plain  issue,  What  is  the  con- 
dition, or  what  are  the  conditions,  if  he  so  prefers  it, 
performed  upon  the  part  of  the  penitent  sinner  to  se- 
cure justification,  pardon  of  sin,  or  salvation?  Camp- 
bell and  his  disciples  say,  confession  and  immersion. 
Other  evangelical  Christians  say,  faith  alone — mark 
now  the  plain  proposition — to  the  penitent  sinner, 
faith  in  Christ,  and  nothing  else,  is  the  conditional 
cause  of  his  justification. 

As  the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptural  term,  justi- 
fication is  bent  to  suit  the  demands  of  this  scheme  of 
doctrine,  so  repentance  is  given  a  signification  differ- 
ent from  that  usually  given  to  it  by  evangelical  ex- 
positors. Mr.  Campbell  defines  repentance  as  *"  sor- 
row for  sin,"  and  further  says:  "Genuine  repentance 
does  not  always  issue  in  reformation.  Judas  was  sor- 
rowful even  unto  death,  but  could  not  reform.  Many 
have  been  so  genuinely  sorry  for  their  sins  as  to 
become  suicides.  Speak  we  of  a  ^ godly  sorrow?' 
No,  this  is  not  to  be  expected  from  unconverted  and 
ungodly  persons.  Christians,  Paul  teaches,  when  they 
err,  may  repent  with  a  godly  sorrow;  but  this  is  not 
to  be  expected  from  the  un regenerate  or  from  those 
who  have  not  reformed." 

These  ideas  have  the  merit  of  originality,  if  nothing 


■••  "  Christian  System,"  p.  255. 


SEVEN  CAUSES  OF  JUSTIFICATION. 


131 


else.  Godly  sorrow  is  the  sorrow  of  a  baptized 
person,  for  that  is  what  he  means  by  a  Christian.  It 
would  be  difficult  to  distinguish  any  more  godly  qual- 
ities about  the  sincere  sorrow  of  a  baptized  person, 
than  that  of  one  who  had  never  been  baptized.  It  is 
to  be  inferred,  if  "  godly  sorrow in  2  Cor.  vii,  10,  is 
the  sorrow  of  a  baptized  person,  then  "  the  sorrow  of 
the  world  "  must  be  the  sorrow  of  an  unbaptized  per- 
son ;  but  it  is  sadly  to  be  observed  that  such  a  sorrow, 
according  to  the  apostle,  worketh  death/'  never  sal- 
vation. 

But  Mr.  Campbell  claims  that  /^sravora,  uniformly 
rendered  repentance,  means  reformation ;  *  and  he 
furthermore  claims  that  reformatioji  represents  the 
whole  process  of  what  is  figuratively  called  regenera- 
tion.''^ It  then  follows  that  if  godly  sorrow  "  work- 
eth reformation,  it  works  confession  and  baptism,  for 
these  are  parts  of  the  process  of  reformation  or  re- 
generation, according  to  this  teacher.  He  also  says 
that  the  multitudes  who  on  the  day  of  Pentecost 
asked,  What  shall  we  do  "  had  already  repented, 
they  were  sorry  for  the  past ^'  had  changed  their 
minds/'  and  were  commanded  to  reform.  But  Mr. 
Campbell  said,  Godly  sorroAv'  is  the  sorrow  of 
Christians  alone/'  but  godly  sorrow"  worketh 
fisTapocap,  repentance — according  to  Campbell,  refor- 
mation— that  is  to  say,  that  the  sorrow  of  the  Chris- 


*  "  Christian  System,"  p.  258.    t  Id.  p.  259. 


132 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELUSM. 


tian  works  regeueration,  and  regeneration  is  tne  whole 
process  of  reformation,  repentance,  confession,  bap- 
tism. Such  is  the  inevitable  confusion  that  results 
from  this  man's  ideas  concerning  repentance. 

Reformation  and  regeneration  are  not  the  same 
thing,  neither  is  uzzdi^uia  the  unvarying  equivalent  of 
reformation.  It  is  properly  translated  repentance, 
and  includes  in  its  meaning  ordinarily  genuine  sor- 
row, honest  confession  of  sin,  and  an  earnest  effort  of 
heart  to  turn  from  sin. 

But  this  doctrine  of  repentance  and  reformation  is 
a  part  of  a  fabric.  Leave  it  out,  and  its  consistency 
as  a  theory  is  not  maintained.  Regeueration  must  be 
made  the  equivalent  of  reformation  in  order  to  make  it 
reach  its  consummation  in  water  baptism.  In  other 
words,  regeneration  mUst  be  made  the  individuaPs 
work  alone,  in  order  that  it  may  be  nothing  more 
than  a  reformation  wrought  out  by  sorrow  for  sin, 
confession  of  Christ,  and  baptism.  For  if  regenera- 
tion is  anything  more  than  this,  if  it  is  a  work  wrought 
out  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  then  water  baptism,  as  the 
so-called  ^M:)ath  of  regeneration, does  not  consum- 
mate the  new  birth,  and  its  efficacy  as  a  condition  to 
salvation  is  at  once  set  aside.  That  is  to  say,  if  re- 
generation is  spiritual,  the  witness  to  it  must  be  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  it  would  be  inconvenient  to  deny 
the  claims  of  the  unimraersed  people  to  the  witness 
of  the  Spirit. 

Mr.  Campbell  seems  to  have  had  quite  a  fancy  for 


SEVEN  CAUSES  OF  JUSTIFICATION. 


133 


the  phrase,  "bath  of  regeneration/^*  as  a  translation 
of  the  Greek  Xourpoi)  TzahYjtvzaiaq,  washing  of  re- 
generation '^),  Titus  iii,  5 ;  and  he  says  this  is  the 
equivalent  of  being  born  of  water.  But  this,  like  all 
of  his  other  modifications  of  the  Received  Version,  is  a 
modification  in  the  interest  of  a  theory.  He  says :  "  The 
bath  of  regeneration  means  the  water  used  for  regen- 
erating a  person.^'  f  The  word  Xo'jt[)6v  occurs  but 
twice  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  both  of  these 
cases  is  rendered  washing  by  the  translators  of  the 
Authorized  Version  and  by  the  Revisers.  It  is  true 
the  Revisers  have  put  the  word  laver  in  the  margin 
as  a  possible  rendering  of  the  word.  But  the  Septua- 
gint  uses  Xoorijp  for  the  containing  vessel,  and  not 
Xouzpov.  This,  however,  is  a  matter  of  but  little  mo- 
ment. CampbelPs  idea  is  that  Xoorpoh  here  stands  for 
the  element  in  which  regeneration  is  wrought;  but 
this  is  a  sheer  assumption.  Washing/^  in  this  text, 
defines  a  process  as  much  as  renewing.'^  We  have  a 
similar  form  of  phraseology  in  the  fifty-first  Psalm  : 
"  Purge  me  with  hyssop,  and  I  shall  be  clean  :  wash  me, 
and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow.''  Is  it  reasonable 
that,  in  the  case  in  question,  one  of  these  expres- 
sions should  define  the  clement  in  which,  and  the 
other  the  process  by  which  ?  The  plain  fact  is,  that 
regeneration  is  accomplished  by  "  washing  "  and  "  re- 
newing'' of  the  Holy  Ghost  shed  on  us.  Again, 


*"  Christian  System,"  p.  263.    Id.  p.  268. 


134 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


^'  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost'^  are  put  in  antithesis  to  "works  of  right- 
eousness which  we  have  done/'  Now,  baptism  is  cer- 
tainly a  work  of  righteousness  ''which  we  have  done/' 
if  so,  it  is  in  antithesis  to  this  so-called  "  bath  of  re- 
generation/' and  can  not  be  the  same  thing. 

In  the  same  way  Mr.  Campbell  attempts  to  han- 
dle the  phrase'^  pure  water/' in  Heb.  x,  22.  He  tells 
us  that  "  pure  water  "  is  a  metonymy  for  "  cleansing 
or  washing  of  water."  ''  '  Having  your  bodies  washed 
with  pure  water/  or  water  that  purifies  or  cleanses."  * 
Kadapo;,  pure,  occurs  twenty-eight  times  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  not  in  one  single  instance  does  it  de- 
fine any  thing  else  than  the  quality  of  the  noun  with 
which  it  agrees.  Kadaow  'joazc  means  "  pure  water," 
and  not  water  which  cleanses.  It  is  the  most  gratui- 
tous assumption  imaginable  that  attempts  to  attach  a 
morally  cleansing  efficacy  to  this  clean  icater.  The 
moral,  or  rather  spiritual,  cleansing  is  wrought  by  the 
"  sprinkling,"  because  this  is  of  the  heart,  and  it  is  a 
sprinkling  from  an  evil  conscience.  Sprinkling  stands 
for  cleansing;  as,  for  example,  "the  blood  of  sprink- 
ling."   "  Purge  [sprinkle]  me  with  hyssop." 

But  all  this  is  in  consonance  with  Mr.  Campbeir.s 
theory  of  the  new  birth  or  regeneration.  Water  is 
the  mother,  according  to  him,  out  of  which  the  Chris- 
tian is  born.    He  says,  f  iu  commenting  on  John  iii,  5: 


*"  Christian  System,"  p.  265.    Md.  p.  201. 


SEVEN  CAUSES  OF  JUSTIFICATION. 


135 


"  So  in  every  place  where  water  and  the  Spirit,  or 
water  and  the  Word,  are  spoken  of,  the  icater  stands 
first.  Every  child  is  born  of  its  father  when  it  is 
born  of  its  mother.  Hence  the  Savior  put  the  mother 
first,  and  the  apostles  follow  him/^  It  has  been  face- 
tiously remarked  "  that  it  is  not  marvelous  that  these 
people  have  so  much  to  say  about  water,  for  it  is  natu- 
ral that  children  should  think  well  of  their  mother/^ 
But  is  there  one  word  in  the  Scriptures  to  support 
this  odd  notion  ?  Did  Jesus,  in  the  conversation  with 
Nicodemus,  give  the  remotest  hint  of  any  such  a 
thing?  He  only  mentioned  this  so-called  mother 
once;  and  subsequently,  when  he  had  occasion  to  com- 
pare the  new  birth  and  the  natural  birth,  he  made  no 
mention  of  the  water.  That  which  is  born  of  the 
flesh,  is  flesh;  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit,  is  spirit.'' 
But  Mr.  Campbell  says:*  The  Spirit  of  God  is  the 
begetter;  the  gospel  is  the  seed."  It  follows,  by 
the  analogy  that  he  is  carrying  out,  that  the  Spirit's 
oflice  is  fulfilled  in  regeneration  before  the  new  birth 
takes  place.  Hence  the  Savior  placed  these  two 
agencies  of  the  new  birth  in  wrong  relation  to  each 
other — a  relation  contrary  to  fact.  It  should  have  been 
born  of  the  Spirit  and  of  the  water."  But  his  theory 
will  not  permit  him  to  put  being  born  of  the  Spirit 
where  the  Master  puts  it,  after  being  born  of  the 
water ;  for  if  he  so  does,  a  man  is  not  born  again  when 


*"  Christian  System,"  p.  201. 


130 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLIS}f. 


he  is  baptized,  and  tliis  is  fundamental  to  Canipellism. 
So  he  must  reverse  the  Savior's  order  in  fact,  and 
make  a  distinction  between  begetting  by  the  Spirit,  as 
the  term  is  used  in  the  Scriptures,  and  being  born  of 
tlie  Spirit.  But  the  word  in  the  Greek  is  the  same 
term  that  is  transkited  born,  yeiywioj.  But  in  one  sin- 
gle instance  is  another  word  used.  In  James  i,  18, 
anoxvico  is  used,  but  this  properly  means  to  bring 
forth,  and  is  so  translated  in  the  fifteenth  verse  of  the 
same  chapter. 

Being  born  of  the  Spirit  means  the  whole  divine 
process  of  regeneration  from  commencement  to  con- 
clusion, and  especially  is  it  that  last  divine  work  by 
w^hich  the  individual  comes  forth  a  new  creature — be- 
ing born  from  above.''  Campbell  must  make  being 
born  of  the  water,  being  born  of  the  Spirit  also  ;  for 
if  he  does  not,  it  follows  that  being  born  of  the 
water,  or  baptism,  according  to  him,  is  no  part  of  the 
process  of  the  new  birth  ;  for  the  Savior  says,  "  that 
which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit  "  or  spiritual ;  and 
if  he  is  born  of  the  Spirit  before  he  is  born  of  the 
water,  he  is  spiritual  before  he  is  born  aijaiu.  And  if 
he  is  not  born  of  the  Spirit  until  after  he  is  born  of 
the  water,  he  is  not  yet  a  chihl  of  (lod  when  born  (.f 
the  water,  because  not  born  of  the  Spirit.  Therefore, 
born  of  the  water  and  born  of  the  Spirit  must  be  one 
and  the  same  thing. 

To  this  extent  of  absurdity  does  this  peculiar  doc- 
trin:d  theory  lead  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Scrip- 


SEVEN  CAUSES  OF  JUSTIFCATION. 


137 


tares.  Truth  is  consistent.  It  is  prima  facie  proof 
of  falsity  tliat  a  doctrinal  scheme  makes  the  Scriptures 
self-contradictory,  as  does  the  one  in  question.  Water 
in  regeneration  can  be  nothing  but  a  symbol.  The 
moment  it  is  made  an  essential  part  of  the  process,  it 
is  brought  into  conflict  with  the  work  of  the  Spirit; 
for  to  be  born  of  the  Spirit  is  to  be  born  again,  to  be 
^'  born  from  above,''  to  be  spiritual — a  child  of  God. 
If  this  comes  before  baptism  then  the  w^ork  is  already 
accomplished  ;  the  subject  of  the  change  is  already 
"  spiritual.''  If  after  baptism,  then  baptism  does 
not  complete  the  work,  and  it  may  never  be  com- 
pleted, as  the  individual  may  not  exercise  the  faith  re- 
quired. Hence  a  careful  study  of  Campbell's  utter- 
ances will  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  he  regarded 
being  born  of  the  water  as  being  born  of  the  Spirit ; 
which  is  the  only  view  that  furnishes  any  escape  from 
a  hopeless  dilemma,  and  this  at  the  expense  of  a 
logical  denial  of  the  Spirit's  work  in  the  new  birth. 

It  is  true  that  he  and  his  followers  ascribe  the 
work  of  instructing  and  convincing  the  mind  to  the 
Spirit;  but  this,  according  to  them,  is  done  by  the 
word  of  divine  truth  —  the  word  being  the  pro- 
duction of  the  Spirit.  It  therefore  follows  that  every 
one  who  sincerely  inquires,  "  What  must  I  do  to  be 
saved?"  is  born  of  the  Spirit,  because  he  has  been 
convinced  by  the  word  ;  but  according  to  these  teach- 
ers, there  is  still  repentance,  confession,  and  baptism, 
before  such  a  spiritual  personage,  before  he  is  born 

12 


138 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


again.  In  otber  words,  he  is  born  of  the  Spirit,  and 
is  spiritual;  and,  according  to  Paul,  Rom.  viii,  6: 
"To  be  spiritually  minded  is  life  and  peace;'*  that  is, 
he  possesses  this  blessedness  before  repentance,  con- 
fession, and  the  new  birth.  A  marvelous  fabrication 
of  doctrinal  inconsistencies. 

And  this  is  not  all.  Campbellism  teaches  that 
Christian  baptism  was  first  instituted  or  ordained  by 
the  commission,  and  the  kingdom  of  heaven  first  set 
up  on  Pentecost.  Yet  they  have  Jesus  here  telling 
Nicodemus  some  two  years  previously  that  he  must 
be  born  into  a  kingdom  two  years  off,  by  a  process 
not  to  be  instituted  for  a  similar  length  of  time.  One 
thing  is  certain,  that  the  new  birth  and  the  kingdom 
of  God  were  present  facts  at  the  time  of  this  conver- 
sation. If  the  Master  had  meant  that  this  new  birth 
into  this  kingdom  was  to  take  place  two  years  hence, 
he  would  have  told  Xicodemus  so.  It  is  evident  that 
Jesus  was  not  talking  about  Christian  baptism  in 
speaking  of  being  born  of  the  water;  and  if  baptism 
is  at  all  referred  to,  it  must  have  been  John's  baptism, 
for  one  thing  is  certain,  baptism  in  the  name  of  Christ 
was  an  institution  of  the  Gospel  dispensation  not  yet 
introduced.  The  reasonable  view  therefore  is,  that 
water  in  the  text  no  more  refers  to  baptism  than  the 
water  spoken  of  by  the  Savior  in  his  conversation  with 
the  woman  of  Samaria  at  Jacob's  well.  The  idea  that 
it  refers  to  water  baptism  is  a  legacy  of  medijeval 
rituals. 


AN  APPEAL  TO  AUTHORITIES, 


139 


CHAPTER  XII. 

AN  APPEAL  TO  AUTHORITIES. 

Although  Alexander  Campbell  has  declared  that 
"the  meaning  of  this  institution  [the  New  Testa- 
ment] has  been  buried  under  the  rubbish  of  human 
traditions  for  hundreds  of  years/'  and  that  "  it  was 
lost  in  the  Dark  Ages,  and  has  7iever  been  till  recently 
disinterred,"  and  "since  the  grand  apostasy  was  at- 
tempted, till  the  present  generation,  the  gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ  has  not  been  laid  open  to  mankind  in  its 
original  plainness,  simplicity,  and  majesty;''  yet  he 
has  appealed,  as  extensively  as  any  polemical  writer  in 
the  Christian  centuries,  to  great  names,  both  in  the 
primitive  Christian  Church  and  in  more  modern  times, 
in  support  of  his  theory  of  doctrine. 

From  the  extent  of  these  quotations,  the  reader 
whose  knowledge  of  Church  history  is  limited,  would 
be  led  to  infer  that  his  doctrine  has  been  taught  and 
accepted  by  the  Church  at  large  in  all  ages,  and  is  not 
that  new  thing  that  he  claims  to  have  dug  up  in 
this  century  from  "the  rubbish  of  human  traditions." 
These  two  positions  can  not  both  be  true;  the  doctrine 
can  not  be,  as  he  claims  in  "  Christian  System,"  pp. 
225-234,  a  part  of  the  creeds  of  the  great  Protestant 
bodies,  and  the  teaching  of  the  great  expositors  of 


140 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


Scriptural  truth  among  them,  and  at  the  same  time  a 
new  dit^covery  made  by  himself  and  his  father  within 
this  nineteenth  century. 

There  can  be  but  little  question  that  Campbell  is 
correct  as  to  the  latter  of  these  two  alternatives. 
The  doctrine  is  new  and  essentially  so,  and  he  there- 
fore .  has  misunderstood  the  authorities  he  quotes. 
They  do  not  hold  to  baptism  as  a  necessary  condi- 
tion to  justification.  They  certainly  were  not  per- 
sistently contradicting  themselves.  This  misconcep- 
tion is  evidenced  in  the  fact  that  he  makes  no 
distinction  between  baptism  as  a  symbol,  sign,  seal, 
and  means  to  salvation,  and  baptism  as  a  condition 
antecedent  and  absolutely  necessary  to  the  pardon  of 
sin.  This  confounding  of  these  ideas,  r^nd  also  of 
baptismal  regeneration,  with  his  theory,  will  be  seen 
further  along  in  our  examination  of  the  teachings  of 
these  authorities. 

As  to  the  primitive  Christian  fathers — Justin  Mar- 
tyr, Origen,  Ignatius,  Irenjeus,  Tertullian,  Cyprian  of 
Carthage,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and  others — it  is  read- 
ily conceded,  without  entering  irito  a  detailed  examina- 
tion of  their  writings,  that  they  attached  an  exaggerated 
importance  to  baptism,  as  well  as  to  all  other  Church 
rites  and  ordinances.  It  is  very  possible  to  quote 
them  in  behalf  of  baptismal  regeneration,  and  also 
for  the  superior  efficacy  of  the  baptism  of  blood,'* 
"of  fire,"  and  the  like.  Let  it  be  kept  in  remem- 
brance that  this  is  a  mere  appeal  to  men's  opinions, 


AN  APPEAL  rO  AUTHORITIES. 


141 


and  these  are  simply  to  be  valued  according  to  their 
ability  to  form  correct  opinions.  It  is  true,  he  claims 
that  he  cites  them  as  witnesses  to  fact.  AVhat  fact? 
The  fact  as  to  v/hat  they  believed  and  taught,  and 
liothing  more.  Not  in  one  single  quotation  that  he 
makes  in  the  "  Christian  System,'^  pp.  218-225,  is 
there  an  historical  statement,  save  and  except  in  those 
instances  where  the  fact  of  infant  baptism  is  set  forth 
as  regeneration.  These  passages  Avere  quoted  by  Dr. 
Wall  to  prove  the  existence  of  infant  baptism  as  a 
fact.  The  reason  assigned  by  these  fathers  is  a  mere 
matter  of  opinion  ;  but  on  the  contrary,  it  is  not  the 
fact  for  which  Campbell  cites  these  authorities,  for 
he  rejects  that  as  of  any  binding  authority,  but  the 
opinion^  namely,  that  the  baptism  was  to  effect  regen- 
eration. How  he  can  claim,  as  he  does,*  that  it  is  as 
witnesses  in  a  question  of  fact,  and  not  of  opinion^ 
we  summon  these  ancients,  and  then  proceed  to  quote 
Origen  as  saying,  "Infants  are  baptized  for  the  for- 
giveness of  their  sins.'^  Now,  what  is  fact  and  what 
opinion  here?  Is  not  the  statement  that  'Mnfants 
are  baptized  a  statement  of  fact,  and  the  statement 
that  this  is  for  forgiveness  of  sins  a  mere  matter  of 
opinion?  In  the  remainder  of  this  quotation,  Origen 
proceeds  to  explain  this  matter  of  opinion,  or  how  in- 
fants, who  are  irresponsible,  can  be  "baptized  for  the 
forgiveness  of  sins,"  all  of  Avhich  is  only  Ori gen's 


*  "  Christian  System,"  p.  223. 


142 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


opinion,  and  made  necessary  because  of  the  fallacious 
idea  tliat  this  baj)tism  was  for  the  forgiveness  of  sin. 

The  fact  is,  Alexander  Campbell  and  his  frdlowers 
will  abide  by  the  teachings  of  the  Primitive  Fathers 
only  in  those  things  that  serve  their  purjxxe,  or  seem  to 
do  so.  If  we  base  our  belief  on  primitive  Christian  doc- 
trinal teaching,  how  much  of  it  are  we  to  take?  Just 
where  will  we  draw  the  line?  Campbell  seems  to  in- 
dicate at  what  they  testify  to  as  to  fact.  This  we  will 
readily  accept,  and  insist  at  the  same  time  that  the 
reasons  assigned  by  them  for  baptism,  whether  adult 
or  infant,  must  be  considered  only  as  matters  of 
opinion.  The  extent  to  which  such  opinions  existed, 
is  a  matter  of  fact :  and  if  he  can  show  as  a  fact  that 
his  doctrine  was  generally  received,  he  is  entitled  to 
the  benefit  of  that  fact  alone.  We  speak  of  his  doc- 
trine of  baptismal  justification,  or  the  pardon  of  sin^ 
predicated  on  the  condition  of  baptism.  If  they  gen- 
erally taught  this  doctrine,  he  is  entitled  to  the  benefit 
of  this  fact,  nothing  more,  and  it  is  still  left  an  open 
question.  Were  they,  in  this  respect,  in  harmony  witli 
Scriptural  teaching  or  not?  But  did  they  really  hold 
to  Campbell's  doctrine?  No.  The  most  that  can  be 
made  out  of  their  teachings  is  that  baptism  washes 
away  the  sins  of  an  individual,  whether  adult  or  in- 
fant, because  of  an  efficacy  given  to  ♦he  water  by  its 
consecration.  In  other  words,  it  was  the  doctrine  of 
baptismal  regeneration,  a  doctrine  Campbell  disr-laims. 
They  also  believed  in  infant  regeneration  by  baptism, 


AN  APPEAL  TO  AUTHORITIES. 


143 


and  administered  it  to  infants  for  the  same  purpose 
that  they  did  to  adults.  It  therefore  could  not  be  tor 
the  pardon  of  sin,  as  Campbell's  system  teaches,  but 
for  a  cleansing  from  the  defilement  of  sin,  a  distinc- 
tion that  he  has  failed  to  see. 

In  fact,  so  far  as  the  writer  is  acquainted  with  tha 
writings  and  teachings  of  Campbell  and  his  followers, 
he  has  observed  that  with  them  there  is  no  distinc- 
tion between  justification  and  regeneration,  or  pardon 
and  purification.  Again,  Campbell  confounds  what 
the  fathers  say  of  the  import  of  baptism  as  a  symbol 
with  its  design.  Water  baptism  stands  for  and  rep- 
resents true  baptism,  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
and  as  Holy  Ghost  baptism  is  regeneration,  and  this 
regeneration  may  take  place  when  the  symbol  is  being 
used,  so  it  is  proper  to  speak  of  this  baptism  in  sym- 
bol as  regeneration.  As  an  outward  sign  it  stands  for 
the  presence  of  the  thing  signified.  The  only  con- 
sistent interpretation  we  can  give  of  the  teaching  of 
the  primitive  Christian  fathers  is  that  which  we  predi- 
cate on  the  principle  just  laid  down.  They  attributed 
that  to  the  symbol  which  was  accomplished  by  the 
agency  of  the  thing  symbolized.  The  penitent  was 
regenerated  when  baptized  with  water,  because  this 
represented  the  spiritual  process.  But  they  never 
taught  that  regeneration  could  not  take  place,  and  the 
individual  not  be  saved,  until  he  was  baptized  by 
water. 

Justin  Martyr,  who  suffered  martyrdom  about  the 


144 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


year  A.  D.  166,  and  who,  because  of  his  previous 
scholastic  training  and  philosophical  culture,  was  the 
most  careful  and  conservative  teacher  of  the  second 
century,  says,  in  his  dialogue  with  Trypho*  on  the 
subject  of  forgiveness  of  sins:  For  Isaiah  did  not 
send  you  to  a  bath,  there  to  wash  away  murder  and 
other  sins,  which  not  even  all  the  waters  of  the  sea 
were  sufficient  to  purge ;  but,  as  might  have  been  ex- 
pected, this  was  the  saving  bath  of  the  olden  time 
v;hich  followed  those  that  repented,  and  who  were  no 
longer  purified  by  the  blood  of  goats  and  sheep,  or 
by  the  ashes  of  an  heifer,  or  by  the  offerings  of  fine 
flour,  but  by  faith  through  the  blood  of  Christ."  80 
also  he  says  further  on :  f  "  By  reason,  therefore,  of 
thislaver  of  repentance  and  knowledge  of  God,  which 
has  been  ordained  on  account  of  the  transgression  of 
God's  people,  as  Isaiah  cries,  we  have  believed  and 
testified  that  that  very  baptism  which  we  announced 
is  alone  able  to  purify  those  who  have  repented,  and 
this  is  the  water  of  life.  But  these  cisterns  which 
you  have  dug  for  yourselves  arc  broken  and  profitless 
to  you.  For  what  is  the  use  of  that  baptism  which 
cleanses  the  body  alone?  Baptize  the  soul  from 
wrath  and  from  covetousness,  from  envy  and  from 
hatred,  and  lo,  the  body  is  pure.''  Language  can  not 
be  more  explicit  as  to  the  insufficiency  of  mere  water 
baptism,  "  which  cleanses  the  flesh  and  body  alone," 


*T.  and  T.  Clarke's  Translation,  p.  101.    t  Id.  p.  104. 


AN  APPEAL  TO  AUTHORITIES. 


145 


and  also  as  to  the  necessity  of  a  soul  baptism  which 
must  be  esseutially  spiritual.  But  the  same  writer 
again  says:*  ^^But  there  is  no  other  [way]  than  this 
to  become  acquainted  with  this  Christ,  to  be  washed  in 
this  fountain  spoken  of  by  Isaiah  for  the  remission  of 
sins;  and  for  the  rest,  to  live  sinless  lives." 

ISTow,  it  may  be  fairly  asked,  Does  this  writer  be- 
lieve in  baptismal  regeneration  or  baptismal  justifica- 
tion? Can  such  doctrines  be  harmonized  with  his 
teachings,  especially  Avith  the  latter?  But  lest  the 
followers  of  Campbell  should  think  that  we  have  not 
fully  met  the  argument  made  from  his  quotation  from 
Justin, t  we  will  give  it,  and  examine  it  and  see  if  it 
in  any  manner  conflicts  with  the  views  expressed 
above.  Justin,  in  his  first  apology,  says:  J  I  will 
also  relate  the  manner  in  which  we  dedicate  ourselves 
to  God  when  we  had  been  made  new  through  Christ; 
lest,  if  we  omit  this,  we  seem  to  be  unfair  in  the  ex- 
planation we  are  making.  As  many  as  are  persuaded, 
and  believe  that  what  we  say  is  true,  and  undertake 
to  be  able  to  live  accordingly,  are  instructed  to  pray 
and  entreat  God  with  fasting  for  the  remission  of 
their  sins  that  are  past,  we  praying  and  fasting  with 
them.  Then  they  are  brought  by  us  to  where  there 
is  water,  and  are  regenerated  in  the  same  manner  in 
which  we  ourselves  were  regenerated.    For  in  the 

*T.  and  T.  Clarke's  Translation,  p.  143. 

t"  Christian  System,"  p.  221. 

XT.  andT.  Clarke's  Translation,  p.  57. 

13 


146 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELTJSM. 


name  of  God,  the  Father  and  Lord  of  the  universe, 
and  of  our  Savior  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  they  then  receive  the  washing  with  water;  for 
Christ  also  said :  '  Except  ye  be  born  again,  ye  shall 
not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.'  .  .  .  Since 
at  our  birth  we  were  born  without  our  own  knowl- 
edge or  choice,  and  were  brought  up  in  bad  habits 
and  wicked  training,  in  order  that  we  may  not  remain 
the  children  of  necessity  and  of  ignorance,  but  may 
become  the  children  of  choice  and  knowledge,  and 
may  obtain  in  water  the  remission  of  sins  formerly 
committed,  there  is  pronounced  over  him  who  chooses 
to  be  born  again,  and  has  repented  of  his  sins,  the 
name  of  God,  the  Father  and  Lord  of  the  universe/' 
We  have  quoted  thus  extensively,  that  we  might 
not  be  thought  to  evade  any  difficulty.  The  only  ex- 
pression in  this  whole  quotation  that  bears  any  real 
resemblance  to  Campbell's  doctrine  is,  "  that  they  may 
obtain  in  water  the  remission  of  sins."  Mr.  Campbell 
has  rendered  this  "remission  of  sins  by  water,"  evi- 
dently seeing  that  there  might  be  "remission  of  sins 
in  water  "  that  was  not  remission  of  sins  by  water. 
Remission  of  sins  by  water  is  his  doctrine;  and  we 
squarely  contradict  his  translation  of  iu  rw  uoart — by 
Avater."  It  is  a  translation  to  bolster  up  a  theory. 
"We  are  ready  to  admit,  and  always  have  been,  that  re- 
mission of  sins  may  take  place  in  baptism  if  the  proper 
conditions  of  faith  and  repentance  exist,  and  whenever 
these  do  truly  exist,  remission  of  sins  takes  place. 


AN  APPEAL  TO  AUTHORITIES. 


147 


But  the  doctrine  of  Campbell  is,  no  remission  with- 
out baptism,  and  this  Justin  does  not  teach.  It  is 
very  probable  if  seeking  penitents  were  taught  to-day 
to  expect  remission  of  sins  when  being  baptized,  eithe? 
by  sprinkling,  pouring,  or  immersion,  they  would  ordi- 
narily attain  it  then.  But  bear  in  mind,  that  "  remis- 
sion of  sin  in  baptism  "  is  a  different  thing  from  re- 
mission of  sin  by  baptism. 

Campbell,  how^ever,  took  care  not  to  quote  the 
first  part  of  Justin's  remarks,  where  he  speaks  of 
"  fasting  and  prayer  for  the  remission  of  sins,''  and 
that,  too,  both  by  the  penitent  and  by  the  Church  for 
him,  for  this  praying  Campbell  condemns  as  useless.* 
It  is  strange  that  if  Justin's  opinion  is  good  testimony 
in  one  instance,  it  is  not  in  another.  But  Justin,  in- 
terpreted consistently  with  himself,  teaches  that  re- 
generation is  a  spiritual  process,  and  that  Avater  can 
not  literally  Avash  away  sins,  but  is  only  a  symbol  in 
whose  use  sins  may  be  washed  away  if  repentance  and 
faith  are  present. 

Had  we  space  to  examine  other  of  the  primitive 
Christian  fathers  the  same  facts  might  be  elicited  as  to 
their  real  views  with  regard  to  baptism.  But  it  is 
unnecessary  ;  this  question  is  not  to  be  settled  in  any 
sense  by  such  an  appeal.  As  has  been  already  said, 
the  primitive  Christians,  from  the  middle  of  the  sec- 
ond century,  on  down  to  the  establishment  of  popery, 


*  "  Christian  System,"  p.  209. 


148 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


attributed  great  efficacy  to  Chiirchly  rites  and  cere- 
monies, until  they  came  to  be  used  as  instruments  of 
priestcraft,  and  came  to  be  considered  vehicles  by  which 
the  Church  conveyed  spiritual  blessings  to  the  people. 
We  much  fear  that  it  is  this  relic  of  priestly  domina- 
tion that  Campbell  has  exhumed  from  the  rubbish  " 
of  the  mediaeval  ages. 

Mr.  Campbell  also  appeals  to  the  creeds  of  the 
Reformed  Churches  for  a  support  for  his  doctrine  ;  and 
in  this  case  he  has  more  completely  misunderstood 
authorities  than  in  the  former.  In  two  instances — 
the  Episcopalian  and  the  Methodist  Episcopal — he  has 
cited  the  ritual,  and  not  the  articles  of  religion.  Can 
it  be  possible  that  Campbell  did  not  know  the  differ- 
ence between  a  ritual  and  a  Church  creed? 

In  the  Episcopal  ritual  he  gives  us  a  quotation 
from  the  prayer  of  the  administrator.  "  Almighty  and 
everlasting  God,  who,  by  thy  great  mercy,  didst  save 
^^oah  and  his  family  in  the  ark  from  perishing  by  water, 
and  also  didst  lead  the  children  of  Israel,  thy  people, 
through  the  Red  Sea,  forgiving  them  by  thy  baptism, 
and  by  the  baptism  of  thy  well-beloved  son  Jesus  Christ 
in  the  river  Jordan  didst  sanctify  the  element  of  water 
in  the  mystical  washing  away  of  sin:  we  beseech  thee^ 
for  thine  infinite  mercies,  that  thou  w-ilt  mercifully 
look  upon  these  thy  servants;  wash  them  and  sanctify 
them  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  they,  being  delivered 
from  thy  wrath,  may  be  received  into  the  ark  of  Christ\s 
Church. AVe  have  quoted  all  that  is  at  all  material 


AN  APPEAL  TO  AUTHORITIES. 


149 


to  Mr.  CampbelFs  argument,  aud  if  there  is  one  word 
in  tliis  prayer  that  gives  support  to  his  theory,  we  fail 
to  see  it.  First,  baptism  is  called  a  "  mystical  wash- 
ing/' What  is  a  ^'  mystical  washing  Evidently  a 
symbol  or  representation  of  a  real  washing,  and  to 
make  doubly  certain  that  this  is  its  meaning,  the 
ritual  prayer  asks  for  "  washing  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 
If  the  baptism  brought  this  washing,  why  the  prayer 
for  it  by  another  agency  ?  And  so  in  the  exhortation 
that  follows  there  is  nothing  more  implied  than  that 
baptism  is  a  mystical  washing,  which,  if  properly  re- 
ceived by  an  adult,  may  bring  to  him  remission  ot 
sins  and  cleansing,  not  for  the  first  time,  but  for  all  the 
sins  up  to  the  moment  of  its  reception.  Campbell  fails 
to  realize  the  truth  contemplated  by  all  these  rituals, 
that,  however  holy  or  righteous  we  may  be,  we  con- 
stantly need  divine  forgiveness  and  cleansing.  For- 
giveness and  cleansing  are  prayed  for  in  all  these 
rituals  in  the  administration  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 

He  has  cited  the  Presbyterian  Confession  on  bap- 
tism. Article  XXYIII,  Section  1,  and  the  only  lan- 
guage he  predicates  his  idea  upon  is  the  statement  that 
baptism  "  is  a  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace, 
of  his  ingrafting  into  Christ,  of  regeneration,  of  re- 
mission of  sins."  His  argument  from  this,  "that  this 
Church  does  not  believe  her  own  creed  "  because  she 
baptizes  infants,  is  the  completest  specimen  of  mere 
special  pleading  that  can  be  found  even  in  his  writings. 
Baptism  as  a  "  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace 


150 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


and  of  the  remission  of  sins/'  is  something  at  an- 
tipodes to  the  doctrine  of  baptism  as  a  necessary 
condition  to  the  pardon  of  sin.  Abraham  "received 
the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 
of  the  faith  which  he  had  yet  being  uncircumcised." 
(Rom.  iv,  11.)  Here  is  a  sign  and  seal  of  righteous- 
ness, justification,  or  remission  of  sins  that  came  after 
this  great  blessing  had  been  received,  yet  this  is  a 
blunder  that  Mr.  Campbell  and  his  followers  uniformly 
make  of  conceiving  that  sign  and  seal,  in  this  case, 
is  nearly  or  quite  equivalent  to  condition.  All  the 
Scriptural  signs  were  signs  after  the  fact,  and  not  be- 
fore; as  see  Exodus  xxxi,  13  and  17,  also  Deut.  v,  15, 
where  the  Sabbath  was  to  be  observed  as  a  sign  of  de- 
liverance from  Egypt,  and  of  sanctification  by  the 
Lord  of  the  Israelites  as  his  peculiar  people. 

To  the  same  intent  Mr.  Campbell  cites  the  formal 
address  in  the  ritual  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  made  by  the  minister  as  introductory  to  the 
performance  of  the  rite  of  baptism,  and  also  the  prayer 
of  the  minister  for  the  candidate.  What  was  said 
above  with  regard  to  the  Episcopal  ritual,  applies  also 
to  this.  A  prayer  offered  for  a  candidate  for  baptism 
would  most  likely  be  for  forgiveness  of  sin,  cleans- 
ing, and  spiritual  life ;  and  because  it  is  such,  Mr. 
Campbell  and  his  followers  immediately  conclude  that 
this  implies  that  they  have  never  been  forgiven  and 
cleansed  from  sin,  and  can  not  be  until  baptized.  As 
well  might  he  conclude  that  w^e  teach  by  our  ritual 


AX  APPEAL  TO  AUTHORITIES. 


151 


that  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a  condition  to  remission  of 
sin,  for  this  is  the  burden  of  consecrating  prayer. 

This  will  suffice  for  the  so-called  creeds.  A  fur- 
ther examination  would  reveal  the  fact  that  in  the 
large  majority  that  he  cites  there  is  a  manifest  misap- 
prehension of  the  signification  of  their  language,  un- 
derlaid by  his  persistent  misconception  of  the  nature 
of  a  sigyi  and  seal,  as  clearly  defined  by  the  Scriptures. 

Campbell  and  his  followers  also  appeal  to  some 
eminent  writers  of  the  reformed  Churches  in  support 
of  his  creed,  such  as  Luther,  Calvin,  Scott,  Dr.  D wight, 
AVesley,  Clarke,  AVatson,  and  others.  It  would  be  an 
exceedingly  tedious  and  profitless  task  to  examine  all 
that  these  writers  have  had  to  say  upon  this  subject, 
and  from  this  educe  their  real  belief  But  the  reader 
may  be  assured  that  whatever  of  exaggerated  impor- 
tance they  may  have  seemed  to  attribute  to  the  ordinance 
of  baptism,  they  did  not  believe  and  teach  that  it  is 
absolutely  essential  to  the  remission  of  sin.  Luther, 
although  an  earnest  opponent  to  Rome  in  some  of  its 
fallacious  teachings,  and  more  especially  to  its  blas- 
phemous claims,  was  still  under  the  influence  of  some 
of  its  false  doctrines;  as,  for  example,  his  doctrine  of 
consubstantiation,  also  his  belief  in  baptismal  regen- 
eration and  a  mystical  efficacy  attached  to  the  water 
of  baptism.  But  the  quotation  cited  by  Mr.  Camp- 
bell"^ from  Luther's  Commentary  on  Galatians  does 


*"  Campbell  and  Rice,"  pp.  460,  461. 


152 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


not  teach  his  doctrine.  It  simply  presents  baptism  as 
the  rite  in  which  the  renewing  of  the  inward  man 
takes  place,  and  he  ascribes  this  renewing  or  regen- 
erating to  the  Holy  Ghost — regenerated  and  renewed 
by  the  Holy  Ghost, is  his  language  in  this  comment — 
while  Mr.  Campbell  says:*  "To  call  the  receiving  of 
any  spirit,  or  any  influence  or  energy,  or  any  opera- 
tion upon  the  heart  of  man,  regeneration,  is  an  abuse 
of  all  speech,  as  well  as  a  departure  from  the  diction 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  v:ho  calls  nothing  personal  regen- 
eration except  the  act  of  immersion  J' ^ 

The  next  authority  he  quotes  is  Calvin,  Insti- 
tutes, chapter  xv.f  Whatever  Calvin  has  here  said 
in  this  extensive  quotation,  must  be  limited  by  what 
he  lays  down  primarily  as  the  ends,  or  design,  of  the 
sacrament.  He  says  :  "  Baptism  is  a  sign  of  initiation 
by  which  we  are  admitted  into  the  society  of  the 
Church,  in  order  that,  being  incorporated  in  Christ, 
we  may  be  remembered  among  the  children  of  God. 
Now,  it  has  been  given  us  by  God  for  these  ends, 
which  I  have  shown  to  be  common  to  all  sacraments, 
first,  to  promote  our  faith  toward  him;  secondly,  to 
testify  our  confession  before  men.  AVe  shall  treat  of 
both  these  ends  of  its  institution  in  order."  Xow,  we 
ask  in  this  preliminary  statement,  Does  Calvin  hint  at 
remission  of  sins  as  one  of  the  ends  or  design  of 


♦"Christian  System,"  p.  202. 

t"  Campbell  and  Kice,"  pp.  470.  471. 


AN  APPEAL  TO  AUTHORITIES. 


153 


baptism?  By  this  preliminary  statement  interpret  all 
he  says  concerning  the  design  of  baptism.  But  in 
this  same  citation  Calvin  has  especially  and  specifically 
disclaimed  CampbelPs  doctrine.  He  says :  "  For  it 
was  not  the  intention  of  Paul  (Titus  iii,  5 ;  Eph. 
V,  26)  to  signify  that  our  ablution  and  salvation  are 
completed  by  the  water,  or  that  water  contains  in  itself 
the  virtue  to  purify,  regenerate,  and  renew ;  nor  did 
Peter  mean  (1  Pet.  iii,  21)  that  it  was  the  cause  of 
salvation,  but  only  that  the  knowledge  and  assurance 
of  it  is  received  in  this  sacrament,  which  is  sufficiently 
evident  from  the  words  they  have  used.  For  Paul 
connects  '  the  word  of  life'  and  the  ^baptism  of  water,' 
as  if  he  said  that  our  ablution  and  sanctification  are 
announced  to  us  by  the  gospel,  and  by  baptism  this 
message  is  confirmed.''  A  careful  examination  of  this 
quotation  will  reveal  the  fact  that  it  is  in  open  conflict- 
with  Mr.  Campbell's  doctrine  in  three  material  points. 
First,  "our  ablution  and  salvation  are  not  completed 
by  the  water."  Campbell  says  they  are.*  "  This  im- 
mersion, says  Peter,  saves  us,  not  by  cleansing  the 
body  from  its  filth,  but  the  conscience  from  its  guilt." 
Secondly,  the  citation  says  that  "  water "  does  not 
contain  in  itself  the  virtue  to  purify,  regenerate,  and 
renew."  Campbell  ascribes  regeneration,  renewing, 
and  sanctification  to  immersion  ;  f  says  "  water  is  effi- 
cacious to  the  washing  away  of  sin."!|]    Thirdly,  the 


*"  Christian  System,"  p.  215.    t  Id.  p.  217.    t  Id.  p.  215. 


154 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


citation  denies  that  in  any  sense  baptism  is  "the  cause 
of  salvation/'  On  the  contrary,  Campbell  says  it  is 
one  of  the  "  seven  causes  "  to  which  the  Scriptures  at- 
tribute justification."^'  The  marvel  is  that  Campbell 
would  quote  such  an  extract  from  Calvin  in  support 
of  his  views.  Yet  candor  requires  us  to  say  that  Cal- 
vin here  says  some  things  with  reference  to  the  virtue 
of  baptism  as  a  pledge  of  remission  of  sins  through 
the  blood  of  Christ,  and  the  impartation  of  the  remis- 
sion in  baptism,  that  seem  to  harmonize  with  Camp- 
bell's idea.  But  let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  Calvin's 
recent  connection  with  Rome  will  account  for  his  still 
seeking  in  some  way  to  exalt  the  rite  of  baptism  as 
an  instrumentality  to  salvation.  But  when  lie  is  in- 
terpreted consistently  with  his  general  teaching,  he 
will  be  found  to  be  on  the  side  of  evangelical  Chris- 
tianity, and  not  on  the  side  of  papacy. 

It  is  entirely  unnecessary  to  follow  Mr.  Campbell 
very  much  farther  in  his  appeal  to  authorities.  The 
controversy  might  be  carried  on  in  this  interminably, 
and  perhaps  no  very  definite  results  reached.  It  will 
suffice  to  call  attention  to  but  one  more  because  it 
immediately  concerns  us  as  Methodists.  John  AVesley 
is  cited  as  giving  a  very  decided  support  to  the  doc- 
trine of  baptismal  remission  in  the  Doctrinal  Tracts, 
a  small  volume  formerly  extensively  circulated  among 
American  Methodists,  and  published  by  the  Methodist 


*"  Christian  System,"  pp.  247,  248. 


AN  APPEAL  TO  AUTHOEITIES. 


155 


Book  Concern.  There  is  one  tract  on  baptism  which 
is  invariably  quoted  by  the  followers  of  Campbell  in 
their  discussions  with  Methodists.  There  is  no  ques- 
tion, and  can  be  none,  that  the  tract  advocates  the 
doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration.  But  was  John 
Wesley  its  author?  AYe  think  not.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  enter  into  the  details  of  the  argument;  but 
suffice  it  to  say  that  very  convincing  reasons  can  be 
given  to  show  that  Samuel  Wesley,  the  father  of  John 
Wesley,  was  its  author,  and  he  was  always  a  believer 
in  baptismal  regeneration.  But  should  ^ye  concede 
that  John  Wesley  was  the  author  of  the  tract,  let  it 
be  borne  in  mind  that  he  was  for  a  long  time  in  har- 
mony with  the  Church  of  England  on  its  doctrines. 
Not  until  after  his  conversion  did  he  begin  to  break 
away  from  its  formalities,  and  have  more  spiritual 
views  of  the  conditions  of  salvation.  It  is  well  known 
to  those  who  are  familiar  with  Wesley's  writings,  that 
no  more  candid  and  teachable  student  of  divine  things 
ever  lived  than  he.  Whenever  he  discovered  himself 
in  error,  he  was  prompt  to  acknowledge  it.  He  has 
left  on  record  his  mature  views  on  the  design  of  bap- 
tism.   See  his  sermon  on  the  Xew  Birth : 

"lY.  I  proposed,  in  the  last  place,  to  subjoin  a 
few  inferences  which  naturally  follow  from  preceding 
observations. 

"1.  And  first  it  follows  that  baptism  is  not  the  new 
birth;  they  are  not  one  and  the  same  thing.  Many, 
indeed,  seem  to  imagine  that  they  are  just  the  same ; 


156 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPEFAAJSM. 


at  least  they  speak  as  if  they  thought  so ;  but  I  do  not 
know  that  this  opinion  is  pul>licly  avowed  by  anv  de- 
nomination of  Christians  whatever."  Campbellisni 
Mas  not  in  existence  then.  "Certainly  it  is  not  bv 
any  within  these  kingdoms,  whether  of  the  estab- 
lished Church  or  those  dissenting  from  it.  The  judg- 
ment of  the  latter  is  clearly  declared  in  their  large 
Catechism : 

"^Q.  What  are  the  parts  of  a  sacrament? 

"^^4.  The  parts  of  a  sacrament  are  two;  the  one 
an  outward  and  sensible  sign,  the  other  an  inward  and 
spiritual  grace  thereh)y  signified. 

'''Q.  What  is  baptism? 

"  'A.  Baptism  is  a  sacrament  wherein  Christ  hath 
ordained  the  washing  with  water  to  be  a  sign  and  seal 
of  regeneration  by  his  Spirit.'  Here,  it  is  manifest, 
baptism,  the  sign,  is  spoken  of  as  distinct  from  regen- 
eration, the  thing  signified.  In  the  Church  Catechism 
likewise  the  judgment  of  our  Church  is  disclosed  with 
the  utmost  clearness. 

^^'Q.  What  meanest  thou  by  this  word  sacrament  ? 

"'.4.  I  mean  an  outward  and  visible  sign  of  an 
inward  spiritual  grace. 

"  ^  Q.  What  is  the  outward  part,  or  form,  in  baptism  ? 
Water,  wherein  the  person  is  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost. 

Q-  What  is  the  inward  part  or  thing  signified? 

"M.  A  death  unto  sin,  and  a  new  life  unto  right- 
eousness.' 


AN  APPEAL  TO  AUTHORITIES. 


157 


"  ^N'othing,  therefore,  is  plainer  than  that,  accord- 
ing to  the  Church  of  England,  baptism  is  not  the 
new  birth.  But,  indeed,  the  reason  of  the  thing  is 
so  clear  and  evident  as  not  to  need  any  other  author- 
ity. For  what  can  be  more  plain  than  that  the  one 
is  an  external,  the  other  an  internal  work  ;  that  the  one 
is  a  visible,  the  other  an  invisible  thing,  and  therefore 
wholly  different  from  each  other;  the  one  being  an 
act  of  man  purifying  the  body,  the  other  a  change 
wrought  by  God  in  the  soul;  so  that  the  former  is 
just  as  distinguishable  from  the  latter  as  the  soul 
from  the  body,  or  water  from  the  Holy  Ghost 

"  From  the  preceding  reflections  we  may,  sec- 
ondly, observe  that  as  the  new  birth  is  not  the  same 
thing  with  baptism,  so  it  does  not  always  accompany 
baptism  ;  they  do  not  constantly  go  together.  A  man 
may  possibly  be  '  born  of  the  water,^  and  yet  not  be 
*born  of  the  Spirit.'  There  may  sometimes  be  the 
outward  sign  where  there  is  not  the  inward  grace. 
I  do  not  now  speak  with  regard  to  infants  ;  it  is  cer- 
tain our  Church  [the  Church  of  England]  supposes 
that  all  who  are  baptized  in  their  infancy  are  born 
again ;  and  it  is  allowed  that  the  whole  office  for  the 
baptism  of  infants  [in  the  Church  of  England]  pro- 
ceeds upon  this  supposition.  Now,  is  it  an  objection 
of  any  weight  against  this  that  we  can  not  compre- 
hend how  this  work  can  be  wrought  in  infants?  For 
neither  can  we  comprehend  how  it  is  wrought  in  per- 
sons of  riper  years.    But  whatever  be  the  case  with 


108 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


inflmts,  it  is  sure  that  all  of  riper  years,  who  are  bap- 
tized, are  not  at  the  same  time  born  again/' 

To  this  might  be  added  extensive  quotations  of  a 
similar  import  from  other  of  his  writings,  showing  that 
in  no  sense  was  Wesley  in  agreement  with  Campbell  on 
the  design  of  baptism. 

Campbell  and  his  followers  often  quote  Wesley's 
notes  on  Acts  xxii,  16,  where  he  says :  "  Baptism  ad- 
ministered to  a  real  penitent  is  both  a  means  and 
seal  of  pardon.  Xor  did  God  in  the  primitive  Church 
ordinarily  bestow  this  on  any,  unless  through  this 
means."  Here  we  have  on  the  part  of  Campbell  and 
his  followers  a  persistent  confounding  of  means  with 
condition,  and  necessary  condition.  That  may  be  a 
means  which  is  in  no  sense  a  condition,  and  much  less  a 
necessary  condition.  Everything  that  helps  to  the 
sinner's  salvation  is  a  means  to  that  end.  The  Lord's 
Supper  has  been  such  a  means  in  many  cases ;  so  also 
a  public  confession  in  various  ways  has  been  a  means 
to  the  immediate  pardon  of  sin. 

And  as  to  the  second  part  of  the  statement,  as  to 
primitive  Christian  times,  baptism  being  the  public 
act  of  the  espousal  of  Christ,  and  the  breaking  of  caste 
with  heathenism,  it  is  probable  that  Wesley's  state- 
ment was  true  in  many  instances,  as  it  is  to-day  in 
the  heathen  lands.  Baptism  performed  thus,  either  in 
sprinkling,  pouring,  or  immersion,  becomes  the  means 
by  which  the  confessor  lays  hold  of  Christ  by  faith 
and  secures  the  pardon  of  sin.    But  how  absurd  to 


AN  APPEAL  TO  AUTHORITIES. 


159 


attribute  to  the  mere  means  an  unconditional  saving 
efficacy,  and  say  that  the  means  is  a  condition  with- 
out which  there  can  be  no  pardon  of  sin ! 

Methodists  have  been  accustomed  to  make  use  of 
a  great  diversity  of  means  to  help  the  inquiring  soul 
to  complete  heart  faith  in  Christ,  and  often  assure  the 
unconverted  penitent  that  if  he  will  exercise  true  faith 
in  the  act  of  baptism  he  may  be  saved.  If  he  has  not 
been  saved  then,  but  will  afterward  grasp  in  his  mind 
the  full  significance  of  his  commitment  and  consecra- 
tion to  Christ  in  baptism,  its  blessed  signification  may 
become  a  means  of  his  salvation  experimentally.  And 
he  may  ever  afterwards  look  upon  baptism  as  the 
divinely  appointed  sign  and  symbol  of  his  regenera- 
tion, and  seal  of  his  covenant  relation  to  God. 

There  is  a  world-wide  difference  between  knowing, 
through  the  witness  of  the  Spirit,  that  I  was  saved  when 
I  was  baptized,  and  knowing  that  I  have  been  saved 
only  because  I  have  been  baptized.  In  the  first  case, 
the  baptism  performed  in  faith  may  be  a  blessed  means; 
in  the  other  it  is  the  saving  condition  that  is  to  fur- 
nish the  only  evidence  of  salvation,  and  as  such  can 
only  last  so  long  as  the  individual  is  not  a  backslider. 
When  reclaimed  from  backsliding,  he  must  have  other 
evidence.  What  shall  it  be  ?  It  is  a  grave  mistake 
that  the  doctrines  of  the  reformed  Churches  render 
any  support  to  this  incongruous  theory  of  the  design 
of  baptism. 


160 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

SUNDRY  OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  DOCTRINE. 

The  doctrine  of  Campbell  and  his  followers  is  open 
to  a  series  of  fatal  objections,  any  one  of  which  is 
sufficient  to  show  that  it  can  not  be  a  scheme  con- 
sistent with  truth.  Truth  is  harmonious,  and  revealed 
truth  must  not  be  so  interj)reted  that  it  continually 
conflicts  with  the  soundest  dictates  of  reason  and 
common  sense. 

The  Lord  said  by  the  prophet  Isaiah,  *  "  Come, 
now,  let  us  reason  together,"  placing  thereby  an  honor 
upon  the  proper  use  of  reason,  and  especially  in  the 
matter  of  pardon  of  sin.  There  must  therefore  be 
unity,  consistency,  and  adapation  to  human  conditions 
and  needs  in  the  scheme  of  salvation.  Any  interpre- 
tation of  it  that  makes  it  a  failure  through  long  ages, 
and  an  impossibility  under  a  diversity  of  circumstances, 
over  which  free  moral  agents  can  have  no  control,  is 
too  narrow  for  the  abounding  grace  of  God.  And 
Campellism  is  just  such  a  system  of  interpretation,  as 
we  hope  to  show  most  conclusively  by  these  objections  : 

Fird.  The  system  of  doctrine  declares  the  whole 
evangelical  dispensation  a  failure,  absolute  and  unques- 
tionable, from  the  days  of  the  immediate  successors  of 


*Isa.  i,  18. 


OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  DOCTRINE.  161 


the  apostles,  until  the  preaching  of  Alexander  Campbell 
and  his  coadjutors.  Campbell  has  said;*  It  was  in 
this  commonwealth  (Kentucky)  that  this  doctrine  Avas 
first  publicly  promulgated  in  modern  times ;  and  it 
has  now  spread  over  this  continent,  and  with  singular 
success  is  now  returning  to  Europe  and  the  land  of 
our  fathers."  And  in  another  place  he  substantially 
makes  the  same  claim.f  It  is  true  that  he  quotes 
the  primitive  Christian  fathers,  and  some  of  the  creeds 
of  the  Reformed  Churches,  and  the  teachings  of  the 
leading  commentators,  to  support  his  theory ;  but  this 
declaration  of  the  newness  of  this  doctrine  is  far  more 
in  harmony  w^ith  the  facts  than  his  use  of  these  author- 
ities, as  we  have  shown  in  a  former  chapter.  It  would 
be  a  very  singular  circumstance  that  a  doctrine  so  vital 
as  that  of  the  conditions  essential  to  the  remission  of 
sin  should  be  accepted  in  creed  and  teaching,  and 
uniformly  denied  in  practice,  especially  Avhen  the  con- 
dition required  was  the  observance  of  a  Churchly 
rite.  The  tendency  of  religious  declension  is  not 
toward  spirituality,  but  toward  form. 

The  objection,  therefore,  is  valid,  that  if  this  doc- 
trine be  true,  the  Christian  Church  for  fifteen  centu- 
ries has  been  a  marvelous  failure.  The  gates  of  hell 
have  prevailed  against  it  from  the  third  century  of 
tiie  Christian  era  until  the  days  of  Alexander  Camp- 


*  "  Campbell  and  Rice,"  p.  472. 

t"  Christian  System,"  pp.  8-10,  and  p.  180. 

14 


1G2 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPRELLISM. 


Ix'll.  It  must  1)0  nMiioinbcrcd  tliat  the  doctrine  is 
vital,  if  it  1)0  true.  Every  sinner  saved  without  im- 
mersion as  a  condition  to  the  remission  of  sins,  is  saved 
outside  the  provisions  of  the  covenant  of  grace,  if  saved 
at  all — saved  alone  through  his  ignorance.  AVhat  shall 
we  think  of  a  doctrine  so  vital  in  the  Chrislian  svstem 
as  this  must  he,  if  true,  and  yet  so  obscure  in  Scripture 
teaching  that  the  great  scholars  of  the  Christian  era 
foiled  to  discover  it,  and  conform  to  it? 

What  is  true  of  the  past  is  equpllv  true  of  the 
present  ;  for  although  Campbell  and  his  followers 
liave  been  publishing  this  doctrine  for  nearly  three- 
quarters  of  a  century,  yet  the  great  body  of  evangel- 
ical Churches  have  failed  to  subscribe  to  it,  and  have 
therefore  failed  t<>  find  it  in  the  Scriptures.  Among 
these  are  to  ])e  f(»und  the  vast  majority  of  the  most 
eminent  scholars  of  this  intellectual  and  critical  age — 
scholars  thoroughly  versed  in  a  knowledge  of  the 
Scriptures.  This  failure  must  be  ascribed  either  to 
obscurity  in  the  doctrine,  or  persistent  prejudice  in 
the  students  of  God's  Word.  The  latter  alternative 
can  scarcely  be  maintained,  although  some  of  these 
teachers  do  not  hesitate  to  put  the  rejection  of  this 
doctrine  on  that  ground.  It  is  sometimes  somewhat 
toned  down,  and  the  failure  to  discover  it  is  ascribed  to 
ignorance.  Mr.  Campbell  himself  puts  it  upon  this 
ground, at  least  by  implication.    He  says:*  "Infants, 


*  "  Christian  System,"  p.  233. 


OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  DOCTRINE.  163 


idiots,  deaf  aud  dumb  persons,  innocent  pagans,  wher- 
ever they  can  be  found,  with  all  pious  Piedobaptists  we 
commend  to  the  mercy  of  God.'^  Then,  further  on,  in 
order  to  justify  the  hard  uncharitableness  of  his  doc- 
trine, he  says :  "  But  such  of  them  [Piedobaptists]  as 
willfully  despise  this  salvation,  and  who,  having  the  op- 
portunity to  be  immersed  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
willfully  despise  or  refuse,  we  have  as  little  hope  for 
them  as  they  have  for  all  who  refuse  salvation  on 
their  own  terms  of  the  gospel.'^  But  this  justification 
will  not  do.  Other  Christian  denominations  do  not 
deny  salvation  to  the  penitent  believer.  Nor  do  they 
hold  any  view  that  compels  them  to  unchristianize 
honest  inquirers  after  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Christ. 

Second.  Akin  to  the  objection  just  urged  is  this: 
the  doctrine  makes  it  possible  for  the  most  perfect 
human  virtue,  holiness,  and  devotion  to  Christ  and  his 
cause  to  exist,  without  a  fulfillment  of  all  the  condi- 
tions of  pardon  of  sin.  Such  names  as  Luther,  Me- 
lanchthon,  Ridley,  Latimer,  Jerome  of  Prague,  Huss, 
AYesley,  Fletcher,  Payson,  Guthrie,  and  Asbury  will 
occur  to  the  reader,  and  a  countless  unnamed  host  be- 
sides, who  have  toiled,  sacrificed,  suffered,  denied  them- 
selves, wrought  righteousness,  and  were  Christian  ben- 
efactors to  the  sin-oppressed  world.  And  yet  they 
failed  in  so  essential  a  matter  as  the  conditions  of  the 
pardon  of  sin.  It  was  in  no  minor  matter,  no  in- 
significant thing,  in  which  they  came  short.  It  was 
nothing  less  than  tlie  converting  act;  for  Mr.  Camp- 


164  ERROBS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 

bell  says :  *  "  Immersion  was  [is]  the  act  of  turning 
to  God.  .  .  .  And  from  the  day  of  Pentecost  to 
the  final  Amen  in  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ,  no  per- 
son was  said  to  be  converted,  or  to  turn  to  God,  until 
he  was  buried  in  and  raised  up  out  of  the  water." 
And  yet  by  the  Savior's  criterion  we  must  know  these 
unconverted  persons  to  be  his,  for  he  says :  "  By  their 
fruits  ye  shall  know  them."  Where  is  the  follower 
of  Campbell  that  has  brought  forth  more  of  the  fruits 
of  righteousness  in  holy  consecrated  living,  than  many 
to  be  found  in  the  Paedobaptist  Churches? 

Let  it  be  observed  that  this  righteousness  must 
exist  without  a  fulfillment  of  the  conditions  to  the 
pardon  of  sinners — sinners  unpardoned,  yet  bringing 
forth  all  the  fruits  of  righteousness. 

Besides,  these  claim  a  consciousness  of  pardoned 
sin  in  ''joy  and  peace  in  the  Holy  Ghost."  Mr.  Camj)- 
beirs  reply  to  this  is :  t  "  How  far  they  may  be  happy 
in  the  peace  of  God  and  the  hot>e  of  heaven,  I  pre- 
sume not  to  say.  And  we  know  so  much  of  human 
nature  as  to  say,  that  he  that  imagines  himself  par- 
doned will  be  as  happy  as  he  that  is  really  so.  But 
one  thing  we  do  know,  that  none  can  rationally  and 
with  certainty  enjoy  the  peace  of  God  and  hope  of 
heaven  but  they  who  intelligently,  and  in  full  faith, 
are  born  of  water  or  immersed  for  the  remission  of 
sins."    It  is  plain  from  this  statement,  so  positively 


♦"Christian  System,"  p.  209.    t  Id.  p.  234. 


OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  DOCTRINE.  165 

made,  that  Mr.  Campbell,  and  likewise  his  followers, 
predicate  their  assurance  on  their  infallibility.  If  they 
know,  as  he  claims  in  the  citation  above,  that  immersion 
in  order  to  remission  of  sins  is  a  necessary  condition, 
then  they  have  assuranceof  salvation.  But  if  there  is 
the  least  particle  of  question  as  to  this  being  a  true 
doctrine,  there  is  just  so  much  uncertainty  in  their 
assurance,  and  they  only  "  imagine they  are  saved. 

But  what  must  be  the  confusion  in  the  mind  of 
any  one  who  could  perpetrate  the  following:*  "And 
as  the  testimony  of  God,  and  not  conceit,  imagination, 
nor  our  reason  upon  what  passes  in  our  minds,  is  the 
ground  of  our  certainty,  we  see  and  feel  we  have  an 
assurance  which  they  can  not  have?"  There  must  first 
be  the  "conceit"  that  despite  the  culture,  piety,  and 
devotion  of  the  residue  of  Christendom,  he  has  dis- 
covered the  truth  which  they  failed  to  discover,  and 
that  he  knows  with  certainty  that  he  is  right.  He 
fails  to  see  what  ought  to  be  obvious  to  any  careful 
reasoner,  that  his  assurance  is  predicated  alone  on  a 
process  of  "  reasoning,"  which  must  of  necessity  be 
fallible,  and  which  if  it  err  in  any  of  its  steps,  leaves 
him  without  any  assurance  whatever.  But  on  the 
contrary,  the  assurance  he  calls  "  conceit "  and  "  im- 
agination "  is  experimental  and  subjective,  and  the 
product  of  faith  in  Christ,  and  actually  gives  its  pos- 
sessor joy  and  peace.    Upon  what  is  the  believing 


*  "  Christian  System,"  p.  234. 


166 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


penitcut  to  base  his  conclusions,  but  upon  the  feeling 
of  non-condemnation,  his  assurance  that  his  sin  is  par- 
doned? It  is  all  Mr.  Camj)bell  or  his  ft)llowers  can 
have  after  they  have  been  baptized — a  subjective  as- 
surance predicated  on  tlieir  feeling  and  convictions. 

But  according  to  Mr.  Campbell's  statement  of  the 
case,  he  is  devoid  of  this  assurance,  for  he  was  not 
"  intelligently  immersed  for  the  remission  of  sins.'* 
He  was  baptized  by  Elder  Luce,  of  the  Baptist  Church, 
on  the  12th  of  June,  1812.'^  Xow,  in  the  debate  with 
Professor  Rice,  he  declares  that  ^' some  twenty  years" 
before  this  debate,  and  during  his  discussion  with  Mr. 
McCalla,  which  was  in  1823,  he  first  preached  the 
doctrine  of  baptism  as  a  condition  to  pardon  of  sin, 
and  all  his  statements  go  to  show  that  he  had  not  ap- 
prehended his  doctrine  of  baptismal  remission  until 
eleven  years  after  his  baptism.  In  the  paragraph 
above  quoted, f  he  says  the  experience  of  the  first  con- 
verts— that  is,  the  primitive  Christians — shows  the 
difference  between  their  immersion  and  the  immer- 
sions or  sprinklings  of  modern  gospels.  Xow,  then, 
what  is  the  difference  between  an  immersion  by  the 
Baptists  and  an  immersion  by  him  or  his  followers? 
Solely  a  difference  in  design.  Did  A.  Campbell  de- 
sign the  remission  of  sin  in  his  immersion?  He  sim- 
ply received  it  on  the  belief  that  it  was  the  proper 


*  "  Memoirs  of  A.  Campbell,"  p.  396. 
t  "  Christian  System,"  p.  234. 


OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  DOCTRINE.  1G7 


mode,  or,  as  he  would  say,  "  action,''  in  baptism.  His 
was  therefore  one  of  the  immersions  he  condemns, 
and,  ex  necessitate  rei,  he  is  without  a  certainty  of  as- 
surance. 

This  ad  hominem  argument  lies  as  against  his  sys- 
tem ;  for  conditions  of  salvation  are  such  as  must  be 
fulfilled  by  the  free  moral  agent  having  God's  gra- 
cious pardon  in  view.  Any  merely  accidental  ful- 
fillment of  the  condition  will  not  suffice. 

A  minister  of  this  belief,  in  a  discussion  with  the 
writer,  replied  to  this  argument  by  saying :  "  God,  in 
his  mercy,  would  not  reject  any  one  who  sought  to 
the  best  of  his  knowledge  and  ability  to  fulfill  the 
divine  requirements,  and  therefore  Brother  Campbell's 
baptism,'  being  performed  in  sincerity,  was  no  doubt 
accepted  for  the  remission  of  his  sins." 

The  reply  was,  that  the  statement  concerning  the 
forbearance  of  God  was  fully  accej^ted,  and  that  it 
required  no  further  stretch  of  charity  to  save  sincere 
P^edobaptists.  Yet  still  it  remains  that  a  matter  so 
essential  as  a  condition  to  salvation  is  so  obscure  that 
it  took  even  Mr.  Campbell  eleven  years  from  his  bap- 
tism to  apprehend  it,  and  multiplied  thousands  live 
happy  and  die  triumphant  without  complying  with  it. 

Third.  Again,  it  is  an  unanswerable  objection  to 
this  doctrine,  that  it  is  not  and  can  not  be  consistently 
carried  out  in  practice. 

Many  who  are  not  truly  penitent  believers  are 
baptized.    Both  faith  and  repentance  must  be  thor- 


1G8 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


ougli  and  genuine,  faitli  of  the  ^'^^ "  heart and 
t godly  sorrow/^ 

If  they  are  not  truly  penitent  believers,  their  bap- 
tism must  not  be  valid,  and  whenever  they  become 
such  they  must  be  rebaptized.  And  it  will  be  very 
necessary  that  they  wait  at  first  until  they  are  sure 
that  they  are  truly  penitent.  The  fact  is,  that  this 
doctrine  is  compelled,  by  the  difficulties  that  beset  it, 
to  lay  but  little  stress  upon  repentance  and  faith,  and 
all  upon  baptism. 

AYe  are  aware  that  this  is  disclaimed;  but  it  must 
be  admitted  that  there  is  a  wide  difference  among 
those  that  present  themselves  for  baptism.  Some  are 
serious,  thoughtful,  humble,  and  truly  penitent,  while 
others  evince  but  very  little  of  these  characteristics; 
their  profession  is  a  mere  form,  scarcely  producing  in 
them  genuine  sorrow  for  sin,  and  any  earnest  desire 
to  be  cleansed  from  it.  Now,  in  this  latter  class,  is 
the  baptism  a  penitent  believer's  baptism?  If  it  is 
not,  then  it  must  needs  be  performed  again  after  the 
individual  becomes  a  penitent  believer.  More  than 
this,  because  of  the  misleading  influence  of  a  baptism 
performed  under  the  conditions  described  above,  would 
it  not  of  necessity  be  an  important  thing  to  inquire  as 
to  the  genuineness  of  the  repentance  and  the  faith  be- 
fore baptism  ? 

The  only  appearance  of  an  escape  from  this  di- 


*Rora.  X,  10.    t2  Cor.  vii.  10,  11,  and  Acts  xx,  21. 


OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  DOCTRINE. 


169 


lemma  is  to  assume  that  when  the  individual  does  be- 
come a  penitent  believer  in  the  true  sense  of  the  term, 
he  may  appropriate  his  baptism  before  performed  for 
his  salvation.  But  the  baptism  by  the  assumption  is 
made  an  impenitent's  baptism.  This  is  a  tremendous 
stride  beyond  infant  baptism.  There  is  no  escape 
from  this  objection,  except  to  claim  that  all  who  pre- 
sent themselves  for  baptism  among  them  are  penitent 
believers  in  the  strictest  sense.  A  claim  that  nobody 
will  admit. 

Fourth.  Again,  a  very  pertinent  objection  to  this 
scheme  of  doctrine  is,  that  it  requires  a  diversity  of 
conditions  under  the  different  dispensations  of  grace — 
one  in  the  Patriarchal  age,  another  in  the  Mosaic, 
and  still  another  in  the  Christian — thus  destroying  the 
unity  of  the  divine  plan.  Yea,  more,  the  Savior  broke 
in  upon  the  established  divine  plan  by  saving  the  sick 
of  the  palsy,^  the  woman  that  w^as  a  sinner,t  and  the 
thief  on  the  cross,  |  outside  the  established  conditions, 
and  simply  upon  repentance  and  faith.  It  has  been 
fully  shown  in  a  preceding  chapter  how  baseless  the 
assumptions  of  this  doctrine  of  positive  institutes; 
but  the  objection  alleged  is,  that  it  makes  God  vary 
in  the  conditions  to  the  pardon  of  sins  in  the  differ- 
ent dispensations.  It  is  not  a  sufficient  answer  to  this 
objection  that  God  required  duties  under  the  Mosaic 
dispensation  that  he  does  not  now  require.  These 


*Matt.  ix,  2.    tLuke  vii,  48.    t  Luke  xxiii,  43. 
15 


170 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


duties  were  not  conditions  to  the  pardon  of  sin,  but 
obligations  belonging  to  a  righteous  life.  God  is  no 
respecter  of  persons  in  the  conditions  to  salvation, 
and  can  not  be,  for  he  is  just  and  impartial.  Repent- 
ance and  faith  are  universal  and  indisputable  condi- 
tions. Rites  are  in  no  sense  necessary,  but  are  simply 
expressions  of  faith,  which  may,  and  does,  exist  with- 
out them. 

Fifth.  AVe  object  to  this  doctrine  because  it  can 
not  be  preached,  and  can  not  be  made  applicable 
to  the  conditions  and  circumstances  of  all  sinners. 
Christians  may,  and  often  do,  backslide ;  and  when 
they  are  reclaimed  they  must  rej>ent  of  their  sins,  be- 
lieve on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  at  first,  and,  if  bap- 
tism is  a  part  of  the  condition,  they  should  be  bap- 
tized. But  Campbell  and  his  followers  will  not 
rebaptize ;  therefore  they  occupy  this  anomalous  jk>- 
sition,  that  they  refuse  to  a  sinner  a  part  of  the  con- 
dition to  salvation,  or  they  say  the  conditions  to  sal- 
vation are  not  the  same  to  all  penitent  believers. 

An  attempt  is  made  to  evade  this  difficulty  by 
claiming  that  baptized  persons  are  naturalized  citi- 
zens of  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  and  therefore  can  be 
restored  through  prayer.  But  this  leads  to  this  ab- 
surdity that  an  individual  whom  God  has  rejected 
is  still,  because  of  his  baptism,  a  citizen  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.  Baptism  gives  the  title  to  citizen- 
ship, however  vile  the  individual  may  be ;  and  if  he 
remains  unrepentant  until  death,  it  will  result  in  this. 


OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  DOCTRINE.  Ill 


that  a  citizen  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  will  reach  the 
kingdom  of  darkness  at  last,  and  yet,  by  virtue  of  his 
baptism,  be  a  member  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

Sixth.  Again,  is  it  not  a  singular  doctrine  that 
makes  the  outbreaking  backslider  a  child  of  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,  and  at  the  same  time  makes  an  alien 
of  the  virtuous  and  upright  child  of  Christian  parents, 
simply  because  it  has  not  been  ascertained  whether  he 
is  old  enough  for  the  so-called  believer^s  baptism? 
But  children  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  heaven ; 
Christ  so  declares  it.*  If  so,  when  do  they  cease  to 
be  such?  When  do  they  become  aliens,  that  they 
need  to  be  naturalized  ?  t  A  child  forfeits  his  place 
in  the  kingdom,  according  to  Campbell,  but  a  bap- 
tized backslider  never.  What  a  jumble  of  inconsist- 
encies is  involved  in  making  this  doctrine  harmonize! 

Among  the  denominations  of  professing  Chris- 
tians, there  is  none  that  the  logic  of  their  position 
more  requires  to  be  believers  in  infant  baptism  than 
these,  for  then  the  Christian  could  be  taught  by  his 
parents  to  pray ;  but  now,  being  born  an  alien,  he 
has,  to  use  their  language,  none  of  the  rights  of  peti- 
tion. This  belongs  to  citizens.  Let  it  be  remarked, 
that  Psedobaptists  do  not  baptize  children  to  make 
them  members  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  except  in 
its  outward  or  visible  conditions,  and  the  right  to 
baptize  them  is  predicated  on  the  fact  that  they  are 


*  Matt,  xviii,  16.    t "  Christian  System,"  p.  191. 


172 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


already  members  of  the  invisible  kingdom  of  heaven. 
But  the  absurdity  of  this  position  does  not  end  here. 
Mr.  Campbell  makes  the  assurance  of  the  Christian  to 
depend  on  the  fact  of  his  intelligent  immersion  for 
the  remission  of  sins."  *  Xow,  the  backslider,  having 
no  immersion  for  the  remission  of  sins  as  a  backslider, 
must  be  devoid  of  assurance,  or  must  receive  his  as- 
surance from  repentance  and  faith  exercised  by  him 
for  the  remission  of  sins.  But  where  is  the  Chris- 
tian who  is  not  conscious  of  shortcomings,  back- 
slidings,  omissions  of  duty,  sins  of  haste  and  passion, 
that  he  feels  must  be  forgiven,  or  he  be  at  last  brought 
under  condemnation  ?  If  he  finds  forgiveness,  it  must 
be  "by  repentance  toward  God,  and  faith  toward  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ f  and  his  assurance  of  this  for- 
giveness can  not  be  founded  on  his  baptism  in  any 
sense,  because  the  condemnation  from  which  he  seeks 
release  is  subsequent  to  the  baptism.  How  can  he 
make  that  act  accrue  to  his  remission  of  sin  that  was 
previous  to  his  sin  for  which  he  seeks  remission? 
The  plain  fact  is,  this  doctrine  of  remission  and  assur- 
ance runs  a  tilt  against  all  reason  and  common  sense. 

Seventh.  Again,  we  object  to  this  doctrine  because 
it  makes  that  a  condition  to  the  pardon  of  sin  which  a 
person  can  not  perform  for  himself.  He  is  dependent 
upon  another  sinner,  who  must  exercise  the  priestly 
prerogative  of  bringing  him  into  the  pardon  of  sin. 


*  "  Christian  System,"  p.  234.    t  Acts  xx,  21. 


OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  DOCTBISE.  173 


It  is  a  sheer  evasion  to  retort  that  we  are  dependent 
upon  our  fellow-men  for  the  word  of  life.  The  word 
of  life  is  not  a  condition  to  the  pardon  of  sin.  AVe 
use  the  term  condition  here  in  the  sense  of  a  free 
moral  act  to  be  performed  by  the  seeker.  If  I  can  not 
get  this  word  of  life,  I  am  not  held  responsible  for  it. 
I  am  only  responsible  when  it  is  positively  accessible 
to  me  and  I  reject  it.  I  may  be  saved  without  it ; 
but  I  can  not  be  saved  without  repentance  or  faith  in 
Christ.  All  the  heathen  that  are  saved,  are  saved 
alone  through  their  knowledge  and  trust  in  God, 
through  their  belief  in  him  as  they  know  him. 

But  this  doctrine  says  the  penitent  sinner  can  not 
alone  perform  the  conditions,  must  be  lost,  despite  his 
repentance  and  faith,  unless  he  has  another  sinner 
with  him  to  put  him  into  the  water.  These  surely 
are  priestly  prerogatives  without  parallel. 

Eighth.  Again,  we  object  to  this  doctrine  because 
it  makes  salvation  impossible  under  numerous  circum- 
stances and  contingencies, — absence  of  water,  in  sick- 
ness, in  prison,  on  a  dying  bed.  It  can  not  be  that  a 
righteous  and  merciful  God  has  so  hedged  the  way 
to  salvation  about  with  conditions  that  penitent  souls 
must  be  sent  to  perdition  because  of  mere  physical 
contingencies.  There  are  large  territories  on  this 
globe  where  a  sufficient  quantity  of  water  could  not 
possibly  be  procured  for  the  purposes  of  immersion. 
In  other  words,  there  are  zones  where  souls  can  not 
be  saved;  or  else  the  Almighty  must  be  continually 


174 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


altering  the  conditions  of  salvation  because  of  these 
physical  contingencies. 

There  have  come  under  the  observation  of  the 
writer  several  cases  ^vhere  repentance  and  faith  in 
Christ  were  exercised  on  the  death-bed,  and  the  per- 
sons received  the  joyful  assurance  of  salvation,  and 
were  enabled  to  die  triumphant;  and  yet  baptism  was 
not  administered  at  all,  because  the  friends  and  pastors 
of  these  sick  ones  did  not  believe  in  any  thing  but 
immersion.  It  is  an  assumption,  we  think,  too  ultra 
for  the  most  audacious  dogmatism  to  send  these  re- 
deemed souls  to  perdition  for  want  of  an  immersion, 
and  to  attribute  their  joyful  assurance  to  a  deception. 
But  if  they  were  saved,  then  it  follows  that  baptism 
is  not  a  necessary  condition  to  the  pardon  of  sin. 
But  repentance  and  faith  were  necessary,  and  it  is  this 
element  of  necessity  that  enters  into  all  conditions 
of  salvation. 


JUSTIFICAT10:S  BY  FAITH. 


175 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH  VERSUS  WORKS. 

Faith  in  Christ  as  the  only  antecedent  and  neces- 
sary condition  to  the  pardon  of  sin  or  to  justification, 
is  the  great  and  distinguishing  doctrine  of  the  Refor- 
mation. It  was  from  this  invuhierable  bulwark  of 
gospel  truth  that  the  papacy  was  assailed  and  de- 
feated. Yet  it  is  this  doctrine  that  meets  the  most 
bitter  antagonism  from  Mr.  Campbell  and  his  fol- 
lowers. It  is  the  word  only,  in  the  evangelical  creeds, 
that  awakens  their  most  intense  opposition.  They  as- 
sume that  justification  by  faith  onlijy  means  justification 
without  Christ,  without  the  word  of  truth,  without 
grace,  etc.^  They  usually  quote  a  fraction  of  the 
ninth  article  of  the  Methodist  Articles  of  Religion, 
and  present  it  to  the  public  as  teaching  that  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  holds  that  the  sinner  is 
justified  without  grace,  without  Christ,  without  any 
other  agency  or  instrumentality  than  faith.  The 
writer  once  received  a  challenge  for  a  discussion  from 
one  of  their  representative  men,  who  asked  him  to 
affirm  the  words:  AVherefore,  that  we  are  justified 
by  faith  alone  is  a  most  wholesome  doctrine  and  very 


-"Christian  System,"  p.  247. 


17G 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLrSM. 


full  of  comfort."  To  this  he  responded:  "These 
words,  in  separation  from  the  rest  of  the  article,  do 
not  represent  our  belief;  but  I  am  quite  williug  to 
affirm  the  entire  article;  Avill  you  deny  it?''  To 
which  he  replied  that  he  did  not  wish  to  deny  the 
whole  proposition.  This  incident  is  given  to  show 
the  fact  of  the  misrepresentation  of  our  doctrine  so 
prevalent  among  them.  Some  Methodist  ministers 
have  been  drawn  by  them  into  an  affirmation  of  this 
fragment  of  this  article. 

The  article,  as  a  whole,  sets  forth  an  unassailable 
statement  of  doctrine,  and  the  first  part  of  it  clearly 
defines  what  is  meant  by  the  conclusion  with  which 
the  article  ends.  "  We  are  accounted  righteous  before 
God,  only  for  the  merit  of  our  Lord  and  Savior  Jesus 
Christ,  by  faith,  and  not  for  our  own  works  or  de- 
servings."  It  is  plain  to  any  unprejudiced  reader 
that  '^fiiith  only"  is  faith  in  Christ.  Faith  must 
have  an  object,  and  that  is  defined  in  a  former 
part  of  the  article.  It  is  plain  also  that  "  faith 
only"  is  in  antithesis  to  "our  own  works  and  deserv- 
ings."  "It  is  by  faith  that  it  might  be  by  grace."* 
Yet  the  followers  of  A.  Campbell  scarcely  refer 
to  this  article  of  religion  that  they  do  not  misrepre- 
sent it  and  the  teaching  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church. 

What  is  the  question  at  issue?    Simply  this:  On 


*  Rom.  iv,  16. 


JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH. 


177 


v»^hat  condition  can  the  penitent  sinner  be  justified  ? 
Not  what  God  must  do  or  Christ  has  done  to  make 
justification  possible;  not  what  must  be  done  fov  sin- 
ners who  are  ignorant  of  the  plan  of  salvation;  not 
what  impenitent  sinners  must  do;  but  what  must  the 
penitent  sinner  do,  who,  like  the  Philippian  jailer, 
asks,  "What  must  I  do  to  be  saved?"*  It  simply 
serves  to  produce  confusion  to  begin  to  talk  of  "  seven 
causes''  of  justification.  It  is  readily  admitted  that 
there  are  causes  meritorious,  efficacious,  gracious,  in- 
strumental, helpful;  but  what  is  the  conditio7ial  cause , 
the  act  the  sinner  must  perform  as  a  condition  to  the 
pardon  of  sin. 

Again,  let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  that  it  is  not  what 
the  Christian  must  do  to  be  justified  as  a  Christian. 
The  Christian  must  obey  the  divine  commandments  to 
the  best  of  his  ability — all  the  commands.  Among  these, 
and  only  important  as  a  Churchly  rite,  is  baptism  by 
water.  This  distinction,  so  obvious  to  unbiased  stu- 
dents of  the  divine  economy,  clearly  reconciles  the 
apostle  James's  statements  with  the  teachings  of  the 
apostle  Paul.  (James  ii,  17-26.)  James  is  treating 
of  the  justification  of  the  righteous,  not  of  sinners. 
Abraham  is  justified  by  faith  and  works  before  God 
when  he  offers  up  Isaac  twenty-two  years  after  he 
was  justified  by  faith  without  works,  according  to  the 
apostle  Paul.    (Rom.  iv,  1-12.) 


*  Acts  xvi.  30. 


178  ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


Campbell  and  bi.s  followers  are  ready  on  all  occasions 
to  cite  the  apostle  James  as  condemning  the  doctrine  of 
the  justification  of  the  penitent  sinner  by  faith  alone,  and 
as  supporting  their  theory  of  justification  by  baptism. 
And  in  so  doing  they  present  themselves  in  the  in- 
consistent attitude  of  at  one  time  holding  that  baptism 
is  one  of  the  works  upon  which  sinners  are  justified, 
and  then  again  that  it  is  not  a  work.  For  by  their 
interpretation  of  Titus  iii,  5,  '^Xot  by  works  of  right- 
eousness which  we  have  done,  but  according  to  his 
mercy  he  saved  us  by  the  washing  of  regeneration, 
and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  they  make 
the  washing  of  regeneration"  to  be  baptism,  and,  if 
baptism,  then  it  is  in  direct  antithesis  to  works  of 
righteousness,"  which  are  excluded  by  the  apostle  as 
not  having  anything  to  do  with  our  salvation.  (So 
also  Eph.  ii,  8,  9.)  Now,  either  baptism  is  or  is  not  a 
"  work  of  righteousness."  If  it  is,  it  does  not  save 
us;  if  it  is  not,  then  what  has  the  justification  taught 
l)y  James  to  do  with  the  salvation  of  the  sinner? 
The  followers  of  Campbell  must  decide  just  what  dis- 
position they  will  make  of  baptism.  If  it  is  a  work, 
then  it  is  excluded  from  the  justification  of  the  sinner; 
if  they  deny  that  it  is  a  work,  then  they  must  give  up 
their  favorite  quotation  from  James. 

Mr.  Campbell  seeks  to  save  his  system  from  the 
charge  that  it  teaches  salvati(ni  by  works,  by  claim- 
ing a  peculiar  excellence  for  ba2)tism  as  an  act  of 


JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH. 


179 


faith.  Under  the  caption,  *  "  Immersion  not  a  Mere 
Bodily  Act/'  he  says:  "Views  of  baptism  as  a  mere  ex- 
ternal and  bodily  act,  exert  a  very  injurious  influence 
on  the  understanding  and  practice  of  men.  Hence 
many  ascribe  to  it  but  little  importance  in  the  Chris- 
tian economy.  ^  Bodily  exercise/  says  Paul,  '  profits 
little.^  We  have  been  taught  to  regard  immersion  in 
water  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit.  The  soul  of  the  intelligent  subject  is  as 
fully  immersed  into  the  Lord  Jesus  as  his  body  is  in 
the  water,  as  an  act  of  the  whole  man — body,  soul,  and 
spirit.  His  soul  rises  with  the  Lord  Jesus,  as  his 
body  rises  out  of  the  water;  and  into  one  spirit  with 
all  the  family  of  God  is  he  immersed. 

If  "immerson  is  not  a  mere  bodily  act,"  what  is 
it  ?  The  condition  of  heart  and  mind  is  no  more 
a  part  of  immersion  than  it  is  of  sprinkling  or  pour- 
ing. In  other  words,  the  heart  can  be  just  as  humble, 
trustful,  submissive,  along  with  affusion  as  with  im- 
mersion. And  if  the  essential  thing  is  the  purpose  of 
heart  and  mind,  why  lay  the  stress  on  the  bodily  act? 
What  an  absurd  idea  that  "  the  soul  of  the  intelligent 
subject  is  as  fully  immersed  into  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
as  his  body  is  immersed  in  the  w^ater.''  This  is  a 
mysticism  that  surpasses  everything  that  has  come 
within  the  knowledge  of  the  writer.    If  baptism  is  a 


♦"Christian  System/'  p.  246. 


180 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


spiritual  change  wrought  within  us,  then  water  bap- 
tism is  a  mere  bodily  act — a  shadow,  a  symbol.  How 
are  we  immersed (baptized)  into  the  Lord  Jesus? 
Not  into  water  "  into  the  Lord  Jesus,''  for  the  act 
terminates  with  the  immersion  in  the  water.  So  if 
you  are  baptized  into  the  Lord  Jesus,  some  other 
agency  must  accomplish  this  work.  The  very  con- 
fusion Mr.  Campbell  gets  into  here  is  a  manifest  token 
of  the  inconsistency  of  the  whole  theory. 

This  doctrine,  then,  is  contradicted  by  numerous 
clear  and  explicit  passages  that  ascribe  salvation  to 
faith  without  any  thing  else — faith  alone  as  a  con- 
dition. By  the  word  condition  we  mean  that  which  a 
free,  moral  agent  is  required  to  perform  Vi?,  his  personal 
act  to  secure  pardon  or  justification.  Condition  must 
be  distinguished  from  means.  Christ  is  the  meritorious 
means ;  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  efficacious  means;  the  word 
of  divine  truth,  the  instrumental  means ;  and  baptism 
or  the  Lord's  Supper,  the  helpful  means,  to  the  per- 
formance of  the  condition — faith  in  Christ. 

By  faith  in  Christ  we  do  not  mean  simply  intel- 
lectual faith  or  the  mind's  assent  to  truth  recognized; 
that  faith  that  is  the  result  of  evidence  understood ; 
for  that  is  a  necessitated  faith — a  compelled  faith. 
Man  is  so  constituted  intellectually  that  when  he  ap- 
prehends the  truth,  he  must  believe  it.  He  may  deny 
it ;  and  previous  to  his  knowledge  he  may  refuse  to 
see  it  or  the  evidence  for  it ;  but  if  once  he  sees  the 
evidence,  he  must  accept  the  truth,  if  the  evidence 


JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH. 


181 


is  clear  and  explicit.  Hence  Campbell  is  wrong  when 
he  sets  forth  faith  as  the  simple  ''belief  of  the  truth  on 
testimony,  and  never  can  be  more  nor  less  than  that.^^  ^ 
Saving  or  justifying  faith  is  an  unnecessitated  act  of 
the  soul.  It  is  predicated  upon  some  intellectual  be- 
lief. The  believer  accepts  as  true  the  gospel  of  Christ, 
and  then  believes  in,  on,  or  upon  him  as  his  personal 
Savior.  And  this  faith  is  the  heart  faith  spoken  of 
by  Paul.  Rom.  x,  10 :  For  Avith  the  heart  man  be- 
lieveth  into  righteousness.^'  In  this  faith  the  will  sub- 
mits to  the  will  of  Christ,  and  the  affections  cling  to 
him  as  a  Savior.  Thus  intellect,  will,  and  sensibilities 
are  employed  in  this  faith.  Mr.  Campbell's  faith  can 
be,  and  no  doubt  is,  exercised  by  devils,  for  they  know 
the  truth  of  these  things.  Again,  this  faith  crowns  a 
genuine  repentance.  Whenever  a  genuine  godly  sor- 
row for  sin  exists, it  will  ultimate  in  this  faith.  So  godly 
sorrow  and  faith  are  inseparable  in  this,  that  faith  implies 
godly  sorrow,  and  godly  sorrow  in  its  completest  exer- 
cise takes  hold  upon  Christ.  It  is  sorrow  for  Jesus'  sake. 

By  faith  only,  we  mean  that  faith  is  that  without 
which  no  adult  sinner  can  be  justified,  and  that  which 
when  a  penitent  sinner  has,  he  is  justified  whatever 
else  he  may  have  or  not  have.  Faith  in  Christ  justi- 
fies the  sinner  without  works.  No  truth  could  be 
more  specifically  stated  and  fully  elaborated  than  this 
has  been   by  the  apostle  Paul  in  Rom.  iii,  20-31, 


♦"Christian  System,"  p.  53. 


182 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


and  iv,  1-25.  He  here  sets  forth  that  the  sinner — 
mark,  the  sinner — is  "jnstified  by  faith  without  the 
deeds  of  the  law."  What  law  does  he  refer  to  ?  Evi- 
dently the  moral  law;  for  in  verse  29  he  presents  the 
Gentiles  and  the  Jews  as  the  subjects  of  this  law,  and 
the  Gentiles  never  had  any  law  but  a  moral  law. 

Again,  he  sets  forth  the  justification  of  Abraham 
as  a  type  of  the  justification  of  all.  Abraham  was 
justified  by  faith  without  works.  ^'  For  if  Abraham 
were  justified  by  works  he  had  whereof  to  glory ;  but 
not  before  God.  For  what  saith  the  Scripture? 
Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  counted  unto  him 
for  righteousness.''  It  is  clear  that  the  works  here 
spoken  of  could  not  be  works  of  the  Mosaic  law,  but 
works  of  the  moral  law.  And  then  to  show  how 
completely  justification  is  independent  of  all  ritual 
performances,  as  baptism,  he  shows  that  Abraham  was 
justified  before  he  was  circumcised.  ^'  For  we  say 
that  faith  was  reckoned  to  Abraham  for  righteousness. 
How  was  it  then  reckoned?  when  he  was  in  circum- 
cision or  in  uncircumcision  ?  Not  in  circumcision, 
but  in  uncircumcision."  Then  he  shows  the  office  of 
circumcision,  and  the  relation  wherein  Abraham  and  his 
justification  stand  to  all  believers.  "And  he  received 
the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 
of  the  faith  which  he  had,  yet  being  uncircumcised ; 
that  he  might  be  the  father  of  all  them  that  believe, 
though  they  be  not  circumcised  ;  that  righteousness 
might  be  imputed  to  them  also."    Now,  if  this  argu- 


JUSTIFICA  TION  B  Y  FAITH.  1 83 


ment  of  the  apostle  teaches  anything,  it  teaches  that 
justification  can  not  be  predicated  upon  any  works 
whatever.  But,  if  possible,  the  apostle  is  still  more 
explicit  in  excluding  everything  but  faith  as  the  con- 
dition to  the  sinner^s  justification,  in  Gal.  ii,  16.  We 
quote  from  the  Revised  Version  :  Yet  knoAving  that 
a  man  is  not  justified  by  the  works  of  the  law,  save 
[marginal  reading  *but  only']  through  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ,  even  we  believed  on  Christ  Jesus,  that  we 
might  be  justified  by  faith  in  Christ,  and  not  by  the 
works  of  the  law.''  Now,  no  amount  of  verbal  shuf- 
fling with  seven  causes,"  more  or  less,  of  the  sinner's 
justification  can  set  aside  the  manifest  import  of  this 
language. 

Mr.  Braden,  in  his  discussion  with  Mr.  Hughey,* 
suras  up  the  result  of  his  investigation  of  Romans 
iii  and  iv,  after  this  fashion:  ^^Now,  reasons  Paul, 
this  was  before  the  law  was  given,  or  before  he  was 
circumcised,  or  he  had  done  a  single  thing  required  in 
the  law.  Then,  if  God  could  justify  Abraham  before 
the  law  and  without  it,  he  can  now  justify  men  after 
the  law,  when  it  has  been  abolished,  by  faith  in  Jesus, 
just  as  he  justified  Abraham  for  faith  in  himself,  with- 
out the  law,  before  it  was  given."  A  more  baseless 
assumption  could  not  well  be  conceived  than  this, 
upon  which  this  attempt  at  an  explanation  is  predi- 
cated.   It  is  assumed  that  Paul  here  refers  to  the 


*  "  Hughey  and  Braden,"  p.  535. 


184 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBEI.LISM. 


ceremonial  law,  an  assumption  generally  made  by 
followers  of  Campbell.  In  ch.  iii,  10,  the  apostle 
says:  ''Now  we  know  that  what  things  soever  the 
law  saith,  it  saith  to  them  that  are  under  the  law,  that 
every  mouth  may  be  st()j)ped,  and  all  the  world  be- 
come guilty  before  God/'  Now,  what  law  is  it  that 
makes  "a//  tJie  world  guilty  before  God?''  It  cer- 
tainly is  not  the  ceremonial  law.  Again,  verse  29 
says:  "Do  we  then  make  void  the  law  through  faith? 
God  forbid:  yea,  we  establish  the  law."  What  law? 
the  ceremonial  law?    Evidently  not. 

But  Mr.  Braden  here  admits  that  Abraham  was  jus- 
tified "before  the  law,  and  without  it."  If  so,  as  an 
example  for  us,  we  must  be  justified  without  it; 
namely,  the  whole  law  of  God,  and  baptism  is  a  part 
of  that  law. 

Again,  Mr.  Braden  asks  in  this  connection  :  "  Had 
he  [Abraham]  believed  God,  and  remained  in  Ur  of  the 
Chaldees,  would  he  have  been  justified  by  faith  alone?" 
He  would  have  lost  his  justification.  Was  he  not 
justified  until  he  started  on  his  journey?  The  same 
question  might  be  asked  at  any  stage  of  Abraham's 
life.  To  show  its  pertinency,  Mr.  Braden  believes 
that  as  soon  as  the  penitent  believer  is  baptized  he  is 
justified.  Suppose,  then,  he  stops  in  a  righteous  life 
just  there,  would  he  be  justified?  The  simple  ques- 
tion is,  When  was  Abraham  justified?  The  only  an- 
swer is,  The  moment  he  believed  in  God. 

In  Eph.  ii,  8-10,  the  apostle  Paul  excludes  from  the 


JUSTIFICATION  BY  FAITH. 


185 


salvation  of  the  sinner,  all  works  of  righteousness,  say- 
ing :  For  by  grace  are  ye  saved  through  faith,  and  that 
not  of  yourselves ;  it  is  the  gift  of  God.  Not  of  works, 
lest  any  man  should  boast.  For  we  are  his  workman- 
ship created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works. The 
works  that  are  here  excluded,  are  not  simply  the  works 
of  the  law,  but  all  good  works,  especially  those  that 
belong  to  the  gospel  dispensation,  for  the  very  works 
that  are  excluded  are  the  works  that  come  after  the 
sinner  is  created  in  Christ  Jesus," — "  a  new  crea- 
tion." *  Now,  Christian  baptism  is  a  good  work." 
If  so,  it  must  come  after  the  new  creation.  The  doc- 
trine here  inculcated  is  this,  that  "  good  works  "  must 
have  a  good  source,  as  good  fruit  can  alone  spring 
from  a  good  tree,  f  I  suppose  that  they  will  not 
claim  that  baptism  is  not  a  good  work,  or  a  work  at 
all.  If  they  should  do  so,  then  they  must  give  up,  as 
already  shown,  their  favorite  quotation.  Salvation  then 
is  ^'by  grace,"  and  through  faith,"  and  "not  of 
works,"  which  makes  it  a  salvation  through  faith 
alone,  so  far  as  the  human  side  of  it  is  concerned,  /.  e., 
the  sinner's  condition  or  act  of  acceptance. 


*2  Cor.  V,  17.   tMatt.  xii,  33. 

16 


186 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

CAMPBELLISM  ON  THE  OPERATION  OF  THE 
HOLY  GHOST. 

It  is  somewhat  difficult  to  get  a  clear  and  concise 
understanding  of  just  what  Alexander  Campbell  held 
with  reference  to  the  influence  and  operation  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  human  hearts.  At  one  time  he  seems 
to  be  almost  at  one  with  the  other  evangelical  de- 
nominations; at  another,  he  seems  to  hold  the  view 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  does  not  in  any  manner  impress 
human  hearts,  aside  from  the  influence  of  the  Bible 
teachings  on  the  understandings  and  judgments  of 
men.  One  thing  is  certain,  however,  his  followers  have 
reached  stability  of  view  in  this  matter,  and  very 
promptly  reject  all  immediate  impression  upon  human 
hearts  by  the  personal  Divine  Spirit.  However,  there  is 
this  one  point  upon  which  they  and  their  great  leader 
concur;  they  agree  in  denying  any  immediate  and  per- 
sonal influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  the  heart  of 
the  sinner  previous  to  conversion.  With  them  there 
is  no  such  thing  as  conviction  by  the  Spirit.  It  is 
simply  the  convincing  of  the  judgment,  wrought  by 
the  naked  word. 

As  already  intimated,  consistency  requires  that 


OPERATION  OF  THE  HOLY  SPIRIT.  187 


they  deny  the  immediate  influence  of  the  Spirit,  both 
in  and  after  conversion.  For  if  there  be  such  a  thing 
as  the  presence  and  immediate  influence  of  the  Spirit 
upon  the  heart  after  conversion,  it  follows  that  such 
presence  and  influence  felt  must  be  the  testimony  to 
such  heart  of  divine  acceptance,  and  at  once  the  theory 
that  the  fact  of  obedience  to  the  divine  command- 
ments is  the  pledge  of  pardon,  is  set  at  naught. 
Hence  Campbellism  can  not  allow  the  doctrine  of  the 
direct  w^itness  of  the  Spirit;  for  if  this  is  conceded,  on 
what  ground  can  they  refuse  to  accept  the  salvation 
of  many  who  are  not  baptized  according  to  their  view, 
who  testify  that  they  have  the  witness  of  the  Spirit 
to  their  salvation? 

But  we  prefer  to  let  Campbell  and  subsequent  ex- 
ponents of  his  doctrine  state  their  belief  in  this  matter. 
Mr.  Campbell  says :  *  "  The  Spirit  of  God  inspired 
all  the  spiritual  ideas  in  the  New  Testament,  and  con- 
firmed them  by  miracles ;  and  he  is  ever  present  with 
the  word  he  inspired.  He  descended  from  heaven  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  has  not  formally  ascended 
since.  In  the  sense  in  which  he  descended,  he  cer- 
tainly has  not  ascended,  for  he  is  to  animate  and  in- 
spire with  new  life  the  church  or  temple  of  the  Lord. 
^  Know  ye  not,'  you  Christians,  ^  that  your  bodies  are 
temples  of  the  living  God?'  ^  The  temple  of  God  is 
holy  ;  which  temple  you  are.'    '  If  the  Spirit  of  him 


*  "  Christian  System,  "  p.  64. 


188 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


that  raised  up  Jesiis  from  the  dead  dwell  in  you, 
God  shall  quicken  your  mortal  bodies  by  his  Sjjirit 
that  dicelleth  in  you.'  Now,  we  can  not  separate  the 
Spirit  and  word  of  God,  and  ascribe  so  much  power 
to  one,  and  so  much  power  to  the  other;  for  so  did 
not  the  apostles.  Whatever  the  word  does,  the  Spirit 
does;  and  whatever  the  Spirit  does  in  the  work  of 
converting  men,  the  W'ord  does.  We  neither  believe 
nor  teach  abstract  Spirit,  nor  abstract  word,  but  word 
and  Spirit,  Spirit  and  word.'' 

We  doubt  if  it  is  posssible  to  find  in  the  entire 
range  of  theological  discussion  a  more  confused  and 
incoherent  statement  of  doctrine  than  this.  At  one 
time  you  are  led  to  believe  that  its  author  accepts  the 
doctrine  of  the  immediate  presence  of  the  Divine 
Spirit  in  human  hearts;  then  again  this  is  all  set  aside 
by  putting  the  Spirit  in  some  indefinable  way  in  the 
word.  What  can  he  mean  by  "  Spirit  and  word  " 
not  "abstract"  from  each  other?  Does  the  Spirit,  as 
a  divine  personal  influence,  go  along  with  the  word 
to  make  it  more  potent  than  its  unattended  truths 
would  be  to  human  understanding,  judgment,  and  con- 
science ?  If  he  means  this,  we  can  in  thought  abstract 
the  Spirit  in  his  influence,  from  the  influence  of  the 
naked  word.  Again,  does  the  Spirit  always  attend 
the  word,  so  that  to  human  minds  the  two  are  in- 
separable ? 

In  the  very  next  paragraph  he  heightens  this  con- 
fusion by  saying :  "  But  the  Spirit  is  not  promised  to 


OPERATION  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.  189 


any  persons  out  of  Christ.  It  is  only  promised  to  them 
that  believe  and  obey  him/'  And  this  leads  to  the 
inquiry,  How  can  this  be  if  the  convicted  sinner  had 
both  Spirit  and  ^yord  before,  in  what  sense  different 
do  the  persons  in  Christ  have  the  Spirit  now,  than 
they  had  before  they  obeyed  God?  Is  the  Spirit  in 
the  word  for  the  unconverted  sinner,  or  is  it  for  him 
just  the  naked  word?  If  the  Spirit  and  the  word  go 
together  in  convincing  the  sinner,  it  can  not  be  said 
that  the  Spirit  is  not  promised  to  any  one  out  of 
Christ,'*  and  on  the  contrary,  if  this  statement  is  true, 
the  Spirit  is  not  in  the  word  in  any  comprehensible 
sense. 

But  Mr.  Campbell  says :  The  Spirit  is  promised 
to  them  that  believe  and  obey  Christ,''  to  "assist 
them,"  to  "help  their  infirmities,"  to  "produce  in 
them  the  fruits  of  ^  love,  joy,  peace,  long-suffering, 
gentleness,  fidelity,  meekness,  temperance.' "  How 
can  this  be,  and  the  Spirit  not  be  abstract  from  the 
word?  And  how  can  it  be,  and  the  individual  not  be 
conscious  of  it?  If  he  is  conscious  of  a  divine  "as- 
sistance," joy,  peace,  love,"  has  he  not  a  direct  wit- 
ness of  his  acceptance  with  God,  and  is  not  that  better 
testimony  than  such  an  assurance  to  be  deduced  from 
the  fact  of  baptism  ? 

But  Mr.  Campbell  was  forced  to  define  himself 
more  perfectly  than  he  has  done  in  the  "  Christian 
System."  In  his  debate  with  Professor  Rice,  he  af- 
firmed the  following  proposition  :  "  In  conversion  and 


190 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLJSM. 


sanctification  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  on  persons 
only  through  the  word."  Xow,  in  order  to  get  at 
his  belief,  there  is  only  one  term  in  the  proposition 
that  we  need  to  have  him  define  ;  namely,  sanctifiea- 
tion — this  he  defines  *  as  a  progressive  work.  To 
sanctify  is  to  set  apart  ;  this  may  be  done  in  a  moment, 
and  so  far  as  mere  state  or  relation  is  concerned  it  is  as 
instantaneous  as  baptism.  But  there  is  the  formation  of 
a  holy  character;  for  there  is  a  holy  character  as  well 
as  a  holy  state.  The  formation  of  such  a  character  is 
the  work  of  means.  .  .  .  Therefore  it  is  the  duty 
and  Avork  of  Christians  ^  to  perfect  holiness  in  the  fear 
of  the  Lord.'  So  that  by  sanctification  here  is  meant 
all  the  subsequent  development  and  culture  of  the 
Christian  character  into  ripeness  for  heaven. 

This  proposition  therefore  is  explicit  as  teaching 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  does  not  operate  directly  or  im- 
mediately upon  the  heart  of  either  saint  or  sinner. 
We  are  led  to  believe  that  the  controversies  into  which 
this  man  was  drawn  by  his  system  of  doctrine,  com- 
pelled Jiim  to  take  a  position  consistent  with  himself. 
The  '^Christian  System"  was  written  some  nine  years 
before  his  discussion  with  Professor  Rice.  We  may, 
for  this  reason  consider  the  ideas  advanced  in  his  dis- 
cussion with  Dr.  Rice  as  his  more  mature  views,  and 
these  are  the  views  usually  held  and  inculcated  by  his 
followers. 


Christian  System,"  p.  65. 


OPERATION  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.  191 


But  the  reader  may  ask,  Do  they  then  deny  all 
experimental  religion?  Do  they  not  believe  in  joy 
and  peace  as  positive  facts  of  Christian  experience? 
They  claim  they  do  not,  that  they  do  believe  in  a  re- 
ligion felt  in  the  heart.  They  even  talk  of  the  gifts 
of  the  Spirit — "  love,  joy,  peace,  meekness,"  and  the 
like — as  being  the  Christian's  peculiar  heritage,  as 
see  "  Christian  System,"  p.  267.  But  Avhen  they  are 
questioned  carefully  as  to  their  real  meaning,  it  is 
discovered  that  this  experience  is  altogether  the  re- 
sult of  subjective  mental  processes.  That  is  to  say,  it 
is  not  wrought  by  any  direct  or  personal  communica- 
tion of  the  Spirit,  but  is  the  result  of  personal  belief, 
a  mere  deduction  from  the  fact  that  they  have  obeyed 
Avhat  they  suppose  are  the  requirements  in  order  to 
salvation.  In  other  words,  there  is  no  spiritual  change 
wrought  by  direct  divine  interposition,  no  witness  of 
the  Divine  Spirit.  But  the  change  is  altogether 
wrought  by  themselves,  and  the  approval  of  their  con- 
sciences for  doing  what  they  suppose  is  right,  is  the 
only  source  of  peace,  joy,  love,''  etc.  So  it  is  at 
once  manifest  that  they  do  not  mean  what  evangelical 
Christians  do  by  a  change  of  heart  or  conversion. 
AVhile  these  last  by  conversion  mean  a  twofold 
work — a  work  of  the  sinner  in  turning  to  God,  and 
a  work  of  God  in  pardoning  and  renewing  by  divine 
interposition — the  followers  of  Campbell  mean  simply 
the  turning  about  of  the  sinner,  and  the  pardoning 
act  of  God,  which  takes  place  only  in  the  divine  mind; 


192 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


and  the  sinner's  joy  comes  from  believing  it  has  taken 
j)lace,  because  he  has  obeyed  what  he  believes  are  the 
commandments  in  order  to  remission  of  sin. 

Now,  let  it  be  observed  that  this  is  no  operation 
of  the  Spirit  in  any  reasonable  sense.  It  is  a  misuse 
of  language  to  speak  of  this  being  either  operation  or 
witness  of  the  Spirit.  It  is  simply  the  influence  of 
the  word  in  the  convictions  as  it  may  be  understood 
by  a  merely  fallible  being,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  is  in 
no  proper  sense  present.  All  of  this  too,  as  has  been 
before  indicated,  is  the  outgrowth  of  the  doctrine  that 
makes  baptism  a  necessary  condition  to  the  pardon  of 
sin.  It  is  this  legal  system  that  compels  the  elimina- 
tion of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  his  office  of  reproving,  re- 
generating, witnessing,  comforting,  helping,  from  the 
"  Christian  System."  For  the  sake  of  water  baptism 
as  a  condition  to  remission  of  sins,  the  Church  must 
be  robbed  of  her  heritage  in  the  Holy  Ghost. 

But  we  will  now  review  some  of  the  arguments 
by  which  it  is  sought  to  maintain  the  doctrine  that 
in  conversion  and  sanctification  the  Spirit  of  God 
operates  on  persons  only  through  the  word.''  * 

The  first  argument  is  what  Mr.  Campbell  claims  to 
adduce  from  the  ^^constitution  of  the  human  mind.^f 
In  this  connection  he  claims  that  "all  our  ideas  of  the 
sensible  universe  are  the  result  of  sensation  and  re- 
flection,'' and  "all  our  supernatural  knowledge  comes 


*  "  Campbell  and  Rice,"  p.  611.    t  Id.  pp.  617,  618. 


OPERATION  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.  193 


wholly  ^by  faith/  and  ^  faith  by  heariug."'  ...  So 
that  we  have  (1)  the  word  spoken^  (2)  hearing,  (3) 
believing,  (4)  feeling,  (5)  doing.'^  We  are  also  told 
in  this  same  connection  that  ^'  faith  is  the  belief  of 
testimony/'  and  is  the  ''regenerating,  justifying, 
sanctifying  principle. It  will  be  difficult  for  any 
one  to  see  how,  admitting  these  assumptions  to  be 
true,  just  as  Campbell  posits  them,  the  immediate 
operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  excluded.  Suppose 
that  with  the  word  spoken,  there  goes  a  spiritual  influ- 
ence that  does  not  go  Avith  any  other  than  with  God's 
revealed  truth.  There  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the 
word  or  in  the  constitution  of  the  human  mind  to  pre- 
clude it.  Is  not  this  just  what  our  Savior  promises  in 
John  xvi,  7-11:  "For  if  I  go  not  away,  the  Com- 
forter will  not  come  unto  you ;  but  if  I  depart  I  will 
send  him  unto  you.  And  when  he  is  come,  he  will 
reprove  the  world  of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and  of 
judgment.  Of  sin,  because  they  believed  not  on  me  ; 
of  righteousness,  because  I  go  to  my  Father  and  ye 
see  me  no  more;  of  judgment,  because  the  prince  of 
this  w^orld  is  judged."  The  obvious  meaning  of  this 
passage  is  this,  that  the  Comforter,  in  precisely  the  same 
personage  that  he  was  to  come  to  the  apostles,  was  to 
"reprove  the  world."  It  can  not  for  one  moment  be 
denied  that  this  is  the  personal  Holy  Spirit  that  here, 
under  the  appellation  of  "  the  Comforter,"  Avas  prom- 
ised to  the  apostles.    And  this  additional  fact  must 

be  taken  into  consideration  in  the  interpretation  of 

17 


194 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


this  passage ;  namely,  that  the  fundaraeutal  doctrines 
of  the  gospel  were  already  in  the  world ;  but  this 
divine  "Advocate^'  was  to  come  to  be  the  advocate 
of  God's  'cause  with  man — in  his  judgment,  con- 
science, and  heart — was  to  be  sent  by  the  Son  from  the 
Father. 

Mr.  Campbell  says  feeling"  comes  by  "believing 
or  faith,''  and  that  faith  is  the  belief  of  testimony." 
Does  believing  the  testimony  of  the  apostles "  al- 
ways and  invariably  produce  ^'feeling?"  This  will 
hardly  be  maintained.  If  it  does  not,  then  what  pro- 
duces feeling  at  one  time  that  at  another  does  not? 
And  again,  is  there  any  reason  that  can  be  assigned 
why  God  can  not  impress  the  moral  or  spiritual  sen- 
sibilities aside  from  the  truth  ?  Let  it  not  be  forgot- 
ten that  the  argument  proceeds  on  the  assumption  that 
there  is  something  in  the  constitution  of  the  human 
mind  that  precludes  the  possibility  of  the  immediate 
impression  of  the  Spirit.  If  it  can  be  shown,  as  has 
been  done  above,  that  this  is  not  necessarily  so, 
and  that  nothing  is  more  reasonable  than  that  God, 
who  is  the  author  of  the  human  spirit,  can  impress 
it,  the  whole  argument  fails  to  the  ground  as  uttc^rly 
baseless. 

But  the  arguments  of  Campbellism  are  all  aimed 
at  a  figment  of  their  imagination.  Those  who  believe 
in  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  immediately  upon 
the  hearts  of  men,  do  not  believe  that  this  is  done 
without  and  aside  from  any  intellectual  convictions. 


OPERATION  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 


195 


from  any  belief  whatever  in  moral  truth.  Intellect- 
ual belief  comes  from  a  knowledge  of  moral  truth, 
and  this  belief  is  shaped  by  the  knowledge,  and  ujjon 
this  belief  is  founded  conviction ;  and  what  is  to  pre- 
vent the  Holy  Ghost  from  making  this  belief  the 
basis  of  a  keen  "  reproof  of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and 
of  judgment?"  When,  therefore,  Mr.  Campbell  said,^ 
They  have  the  spirit  of  God  operating  without  testi- 
mony, without  apprehension  or  comprehension,  without 
sense,  suceptibility,  or  feeling,"  he  was  either  grossl}' 
ignorant  of  the  views  of  the  evangelical  Churches,  or 
he  was  indulging  in  special  pleading  wholly  unworthy 
a  controversy  on  matters  so  vitally  important.  The 
misfortune,  however,  is,  that  he  has  bequeathed  a  very 
large  legacy  of  the  same  kind  to  his  followers,  who 
are  wont  to  make  the  doctrine  of  the  immediate  oper- 
ation of  the  Holy  Ghost  a  subject  of  ridicule  and  ir- 
reverent contempt. 

For  a  wholesale  ex  cathedra  deliverance,  that  dis- 
plays the  spirit  of  an  arrant  dogmatist,  the  following 
can  scarcely  be  excelled  if  I,  therefore,  ex  animOy 
repudiate  their  whole  theory  of  mystic  influence  and 
metaphysical  regeneration  as  a  vision  of  visions,  a 
dream  of  dreams,  at  war  with  philosophy,  with  the 
philosophy  of  mind,  with  the  Bible,  with  reason,  with 
common  sense,  and  with  all  Christian  experience." 
If  vociferous  assertion  would  settle  a  question,  this 


*"  Campbell  and  Rice,"  p.  619.    t  Id.  p.  619. 


196  ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLTSM. 


whole  dispute  would  have  been  settled  long  since;  for 
this  is  the  method  with  which  they  customarily  meet 
the  question.  It  certainly  is  not  unphilosophical  to 
say  God  can  directly  impress  human  minds  and  hearts. 
He  who  made  conscience  to  say,  Thou  art  guiltv," 
Thou  art  condemned/'  can  make  himself  felt  in  con- 
science bringing  pardon  and  peace.  He  who  could 
^*  move  holy  men  of  old  "  to  write  his  revelation  to  men, 
can  certainly  make  penitent  hearts  to  feel  that  their  sins 
are  pardoned.  It  certainly  is  not  uuscriptural  to  say, 
"The  Spirit  himself  beareth  witness  witli  our  spirits 
that  we  are  the  children  of  God.'^  Nor  is  it  contrary 
to  Christian  experience ;  for  the  hymnody  of  the  Chris- 
tian ages  bears  testimony  to  the  fact  that  it  always 
has  been  the  belief  of  Christians  that  Christ  did  send 
the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise  to  abide  with  the  Church 
forever,  and  the  only  antagonism  this  doctrine  meets 
is  from  this  very  modern  source. 

Mr.  Campbell's  second  argument  is  characterized 
by  the  same  total  misapprehension  of  the  real  issue. 
He  says:*  "Our  second  argument  is  deduced  from 
the  fact  that  no  living  man  has  ever  been  heard  of, 
and  none  can  now  be  found,  possessed  of  a  single  con- 
ception of  Christianity,  of  one  spiritual  thought,  feel- 
ing, or  emotion,  where  the  Bible  or  some  tradition 
from  it  has  not  been  before  him.  Where  the  Bible 
has  not  been  sent,  or  its  traditions  developed,  there 


»  "  Campbell  and  Rice,"  p.  019. 


OPERATION  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.  197 


is  not  one  single  spiritual  idea,  word,  or  action/' 
He  then  infers  from  these  sweeping  assumptions  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  has  never  operated  on  human  hearts 
where  the  Bible  or  some  truth  from  it  has  not  gone, 
and  then  makes  the  following  deduction  :  "  If,  then, 
he  has  never  operated  in  this  way  where  the  Bible  has 
never  gone,  who  can  prove  that  he  so  operates  here 
where  the  Bible  is  enjoyed  The  assumptions  con- 
tained in  the  first  part  of  this  quotation  are  not  only 
wholly  unsupported  by  the  evidence,  but  they  are 
positively  contrary  to  fact.  People  who  have  not 
the  Bible,  and  never  had  it,  are  not  absolutely  ^'  with- 
out one  spiritual  thought,  feeling,  or  emotion."  The 
apostle  Paul  said  of  the  heathen  of  his  day,  Pom.  ii, 
14,  15:  ''These  having  not  the  law  are  a  law  unto 
themselves,  which  show  the  work  of  the  la,w  written 
in  their  hearts,  their  conscience  also  bearing  witness, 
and  their  thoughts  the  meanwhile  accusing  or  excusing 
one  another.'^  And  this  has  been  found  true  of  the 
heathen  of  all  ages.  If  Campbell  and  his  followers 
admit  the  salvation  of  any  heathen  without  the  gospel, 
they  must  admit  that  such  as  are  saved  must  have  had 
"  spiritual  thoughts,  feelings,  and  emotions.''  The  fact 
is,  the  Lord  said  of  the  antediluvians,  and  that,  too, 
before  a  single  word  of  the  Scriptures  had  been  written. 
Gen.  vi,  3 :  "  My  Spirit  shall  not  always  strive  with 
man.''  Heathenism  has  presented  such  spiritual  char- 
acters as  a  Socrates,  a  Plato,  an  Epictetus,  a  Sen- 
eca, a  Confucius,  and  imdoubtedly  an  unnamed  host 


198 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


besides.  How  can  these  be  accounted  for  if  CampbelPs 
assertions  are  true?  Again,  how  can  the  intense,  ago- 
nizing search  after  spiritual  truth  by  the  philosopher 
Justin  and  Clement  of  Alexandria  be  accounted  for 
Avithout  admitting  that  they  were  following  the  lead- 
ing of  the  Divine  Spirit? 

So  far  are  these  assertions  from  being  true,  that 
man  everywhere,  and  in  all  ages,  has  given  indication 
of  an  unsatisfied  heart  and  a  troubled  conscience  on 
the  subject  of  liis  spiritual  well-being.  His  smoking 
altars,  his  ministering  priests,  his  hecatombs  of  bleed- 
ing victims,  his  prayers,  his  lustrations,  his  attempts 
at  expiating  his  sins  by  his  own  sufferings,  all  give 
token  that  something  troubles  the  soul  of  man  in  the 
directions  essentially  and  only  spiritual.  What  is  it "? 
Is  it  wholly  intuitive  ?  If  it  were  intuitive,  it  could 
not  be  crushed  out,  as  it  often  is,  by  those  who  prefer 
not  its  guidance,  but  choose  the  way  of  sin. 

Furthermore,  the  deduction  made  from  this  false, 
assumption  concerning  the  heathen,  that  if  the  Spirit 
does  not  operate  where  the  Bible  is  not,  it  can  not  be 
claimed  that  he  operates  where  the  Bible  is,  is  a  per- 
fect noil  sequitur.  It  simply  proves  nothing.  Mr. 
Campbell  admits  that  in  some  indefinable  way  "  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  shed  upon "  the  Christian  "  richly 
through  Jesus  Christ  our  Savior;  of  which  the  peace 
of  mind,  the  love,  joy,  and  hope  of  the  regenerate  is 
full  proof."  Now,  if  this  means  anything  more  than 
simply  the  Bible  bringing  to  Christians  promises  of 


OPERATION  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 


199 


peace,  joy,  love,  etc.,  it  is  an  immediate  operation 
upon  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  along  Avith,  and 
additional  to,  the  word. 

But  this  is  a  matter  to  be  settled  by  an  appeal  to 
God's  Word,  which  will  be  fully  made  when  once  all 
these  objections  have  been  considered. 


200 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

OBJECTIONS  CONSIDERED. 

Mr.  Campbell's  third  objection  to  the  immediate 
operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  based  on  the  fact  tluit 
those  who  claim  this  immediate  work  are  not  able  to 
make  any  revelation  additional  to  the  one  given  in 
the  Bible,  and  do  not  give  any  new  spiritnal  insight 
to  the  revelation  that  was  originally  given.  This  ob- 
jection is  founded  upon  the  assumption  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  can  not  operate  on  human  hearts,  except  to  re- 
veal new  doctrinal  truth  or  to  give  a  supernatural  in- 
sight into  the  truth  already  revealed.  We  are  clearly 
taught  in  1  Cor.  xii,  that  there  are  diversities  of 
gifts,  but  the  same  Spirit;''  and  in  verse  13,  "For  by 
one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we 
be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free;  and 
have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit.''  Here  is 
an  immediate  operation  of  the  Spirit  called  a  baptism, 
which  came  certainly  to  some  that  did  not  have  any 
new  truth  to  reveal,  or  any  supernatural  light  to  fur- 
nish upon  truth  already  revealed. 

Mr.  Campbell  admits,  and  his  followers  likewise, 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  in  an  immediate  impartation  came 
to  the  Church  in  apostolic  days.  It  fell  on  the  house- 
hold of  Cornelius,  was  imparted  by  the  laying  on  of 


OBJECTIONS  CONSIDERED. 


201 


the  apostle's  hands,  in  fact  was  enjoyed  by  very  many 
who  never  felt,  and  never  received  any  new  revela- 
tion. If  this  is  so,  the  objection  amounts  to  nothing, 
and  the  facts  prove  that  the  immediate  operation  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  confined  to  the  work  of  the 
giving  of  a  revelation. 

The  immediate  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in  his 
reproving  office  is  to  quicken  conscience,  and  enforce 
upon  it  the  claims  of  truth  and  righteousness;  in  his 
office  in  regeneration  it  is  to  cleanse  the  heart  and 
conscience  from  sin  and  guilt;  in  other  words,  to 
create  the  penitent  believer  anew  in  Christ  Jesus,  and 
to  bear  witness  that  the  sins  are  forgiven,  and  that  the 
believer  is  adopted  into  the  family  of  God.  Is  not 
this  a  reasonable  theory?  And  is  there  any  necessity 
in  all  this  for  a  new  revelation  of  spiritual  truths? 
When  Jesus  told  the  sick  of  the  palsy  and  the  sin- 
ning woman,  Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee,''  there 
was  no  new  revelation  in  this,  save  and  except  one  to 
their  hearts ;  and  since  he  has  gone  to  heaven,  has  it 
become  impossible  for  him  to  say  the  same  to  human 
hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost  ? 

Mr.  Campbell's  fourth  argument  is  especially  di- 
rected against  the  Presbyterian  view  of  regeneration ; 
namely,  that  it  is  the  work  of  the  Spirit  that  precedes 
repentance,  and  is  the  effectual  call  of  the  elect  sinner 
to  repentance.  With  this  mistaken  view^  we  have 
nothing  to  do,  and  should  have  passed  the  objection 
by  did  not  he  and  some  of  the  exponents  of  his  views 


202 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


regard  it  an  objection  valid  against  all  who  believe 
in  the  immediate  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  hu- 
man hearts.  When  he  says:  ^  If  then  the  Spirit  of 
God,  without  faith,  without  the  knowledge  of  the  gos- 
pel, in  any  case  regenerates  an  individual,  he  does  so 
in  all  cases.  But  if  faith  in  God  or  knowled<re  of 
Christ  is  essential  in  one  case,  it  is  essential  in  every 
other  case."  Here  is  a  complete  misapprehension  of 
the  doctrine  advocated  by  Arminians  at  least.  Ar- 
minians  do  not  believe  that  the  Spirit  of  God,  with- 
out any  knowledge  or  without  any  faith  "  of  any  sort, 
ever  convicts  the  sinner  or  regenerates  the  penitent. 
Some  knowledge  of  moral  truth  and  some  faith  in  the 
good  exists  wherever  a  soul  is  found  seeking  after 
trutli.  If  there  is  no  regeneration  under  such  cir- 
cumstances, then  the  heathen  are  all  lost,  or  some  get 
to  heaven  without  being  born  again.  If  a  knowl- 
edge of  Christ  is  essential  in  every  case  "  to  regenera- 
tion, how  are  the  heathen  saved,  and  how  are  those 
saved  who  lived  before  Christ,  and  just  how  much 
knowledge  of  Christ  is  essential  now?  This  is  an 
objection  that  cuts  every  way. 

Wherever  there  is  faith  in  the  good,  however 
darkened  the  knowledge,  there  is  faith  in  God — a  faith 
that,  with  Christian  knowledge,  would  take  hold  of 
Christ  as  the  Savior  of  sinners.  Such  a  faith  will 
bring  regeneration  in  all  cases. 


*  "  Campbell  ami  Kice,"  p.  G20. 


OBJECTIONS  CONSIDERED.  203 


His  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh  arguments,  so-called, 
consist  simply  in  asserting,  because  gospel  truth  was 
revealed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  human  language,  that 
therefore  human  language  thus  indited  is  to  be  the 
only  means  of  converting  sinners.  The  Comforter  of 
John  xiv,  15,  16,  is  translated  Advocate,  because  he 
believes  this  translation  best  harmonizes  with  his  idea 
that  the  Spirit's  entire  influence  is  to  be  confined  to 
the  naked  word.  He  says :  ^  ^'  Now,  as  the  Spirit  is 
to  advocate  Christ's  cause  he  must  use  means.  Hence, 
when  Jesus  gives  him  the  work  of  conviction,  he  fur- 
nishes him  with  suitable  and  competent  arguments  to 
eflect  the  end  of  his  mission.  He  was  to  convince 
the  world  of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment. 
In  accomplishing  this  he  was  to  argue  from  three 
topics:  1.  The  unbelief  of  the  world;  2.  Christ's  re- 
ception into  heaven ;  3.  The  dethronement  of  his 
great  adversary,  the  prince  of  this  world." 

A  comment  more  utterly  fanciful  can  hardly  be 
conceived;  yet  this  comment  is  heard  always,  with 
but  little  modification,  in  the  mouths  of  his  followers. 
The  plain,  smiple  question  is:  Does  the  Savior,  by 
the  Paraclete,  here  mean  the  Person  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  or  does  he  mean  only  the  inspired  Word?  K 
he  means  the  latter,  why  did  he  not  use  the  term  that 
is  plain  and  comprehensible — the  Word?  Nothing 
could  be  more  calculated  to  mislead  than  the  term 


Campbell  and  Rice,"  p.  622. 


204 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


here  made  use  of,  if  this  theory  of  interpretation  be 
correct.  Attention  has  ah'cady  been  called  to  the  fact 
tliat  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel  were  at 
that  time  in  the  world,  and  therefore  they  could  not 
be  sent.  But  Mr.  Campbell  says  "the  advocate  must 
use  means."  In  what  way?  Was  he  simply  to  re- 
veal truth,  or  was  he  also  to  enforce  truth  already 
revealed  and  to  be  revealed  ?  If  the  latter,  how  then 
was  it  to  be  done  but  by  direct  spiritual  impression 
upon  the  minds  and  hearts  of  men?  Is  the  Holy 
Spirit  limited  only  to  words  of  human  language  as 
means  to  reach  the  hearts  and  consciences  of  men? 
But  to  the  Savior's  promises  to  settle  this  matter — 
John  xiv,  16-17:  "And  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and 
he  shall  give  you  another  Comforter  [^Paraclete],  that 
he  may  abide  with  you  forever;  even  the  Spirit  of 
truth,  whom  the  world  can  not  receive,  because  it 
seeth  him  not,  neither  knoweth  him.  But  ye  know 
him,  for  he  dwelleth  with  you,  and  shall  be  in  you." 
The  personal  pronouns  "he"  and  "him,"  here  used, 
clearly  establish  the  personality  of  this  promised  gift. 
His  taking  the  place  of  Christ  with  the  disciples — 
"with"  them  and  "in"  them — indicates  most  con- 
clusively that  it  was  not  words  of  truth  the  Savior  was 
promising,  but  a  conscious  divine  presence.  The  de- 
clared inability  of  the  world  to  receive  him,  at  once 
proves  that  it  was  not  the  word  of  truth  about  which 
the  Savior  was  speaking ;  for  this  word  the  world  can 
receive  and  know,  inasmuch  as  it  is  revealed  for  that 


OBJECTIONS  CONSIDERED. 


205 


very  purpose.  According  to  Mr.  Campbell,  sinners 
1st.  Hear  the  word;  2d.  Believe;  3d.  Obey.  He 
therefore  can  in  no  wise  assert  that  the  world  can  not 
receive  the  word  of  God.  Again,  this  Divine  Com- 
panion was  to  abide  with  the  disciples  of  Christ  for- 
ever. How?  Not  as  a  revealer  of  new  truth,  but  as 
a  Comforter.  And,  lastly,  he  already  dwelt  with 
them  in  some  of  his  gracious  offices ;  but  should  here- 
after— after  the  Pentecost — be  ^Mn  them"  as  a  con- 
tinual abiding  guest.  In  verse  26th  of  this  same 
chapter  we  have  the  Comforter  clearly  designated  as 
to  personality  :  ^'  But  the  Comforter,  ruhlch  is  the  Holy 
Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name,  he 
shall  teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your 
remembrance  whatsoever  I  have  said  unto  you.'' 
Here,  also,  his  office  of  teacher  of  things  already  re- 
vealed is  set  forth.  It  is  not  the  naked  truth  already 
given,  left  to  itself;  but  this  truth  '^called  to  remem- 
brance," and  its  demands,  obligations,  promises,  and 
hopes  given  force  and  effect iv^eness  by  the  Divine 
Spirit's  presence.  It  is  to  quicken  men's  spiritual  fac- 
ulties that  the  Spirit  is  present. 

In  ch.  XV,  26,  we  have  still  another  office  of  the 
Comforter  defined  :  "  But  when  the  Comforter  is  come, 
whom  I  will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father,  eve^i  the 
Spirit  of  truth  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father,  he 
shall  testify  of  me."  The  Revised  Version  reads: 
"  He  shall  bear  witness  of  me."  It  is  his  office  to 
bear  witness  to  our  adoption  (Rom.  viii,  16);  i.  e.,  to 


206 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


Christ  as  indeed  the  Savi  of  sinners  in  the  pardon 
of  onr  sins. 

In  ch.  xvi,  7-11,  his  oflBce  as  a  reprover  of  sin  is 
clearly  set  forth:  He  shall  reprove  the  world  of  sin, 
of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment."  The  only  ques- 
tion of  dispute  in  reference  to  the  meaning  of  this 
text  is,  Does  it  mean  that  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  only 
"  reprove  the  world  "  by  means  of  the  naked  word, 
or  does  it  mean  that  the  personal  influence  of  the 
Spirit  shall  attend  that  word  to  men's  consciences 
and  hearts?  It  is  certain  that,  in  whatever  sense  this 
Divine  Personage  was  sent  to  the  disciples,  in  that 
same  sense  he  was  to  be  in  *'the  world  "  to  reprove" 
it.  That  is  to  say,  if  as  a  personal  presence  and  power 
he  came  to  the  disciples  in  his  several  offices  towards 
them,  he  also,  as  a  personal  presence,  was  to  be  in  his 
reproving  office  toward  sinners.  The  offices  of  the 
Spirit  toward  the  disciples  and  the  world  are  relatively 
different,  but  the  personal  power  and  influence  is  the 
same.  It  is  He,  the  Spirit  himself,"  or  else  the 
very  means  al)out  Avhich  Mr.  Campbell  has  so  much  to 
say — the  words  of  the  Spirit — are  misleading  and  com- 
pletely bewildering. 

The  inference  made  by  Mr.  Campbell  that,  because 
symbolical  tongues  of  flame  rested  upon  the  heads  of 
the  disciples  at  Pentecost,  and  because  they  were  en- 
abled to  speak  with  tongues,  that  therefore,  under  the 
gospel  dispensation,  the  only  agency  toward  the  con- 
version of  men  was  to  be  the  words  of  the  gospel,  is 


OBJECTIONS  CONSIDERED. 


207 


certainly  not  a  legitimate  one.  Again,  it  may  be  asked, 
Why  may  not  the  Spirit  attend  those  words  wherever 
read,  preached,  or  heard?  Why  may  not  the  Spirit 
make  them  more  effective  in  conscience  than  they 
otherwise  would  be?  And  why  may  not  the  Spirit  bear 
witness  to  those  that  accept  the  gospel  that  they  are 
accepted  of  God  ?  Is  there  any  necessary  conflict  be- 
tween these  two  facts  that  makes  them  incompatible? 
Yet  this  seems  to  be  the  whole  burden  of  the  aro:u- 
ments  of  Campbellism,  that  the  mediate  use  of  the 
word  at  once  sets  aside  the  immediate  office  of  the 
Spirit.  The  persistency  with  which  this  inconse- 
quential argument  is  alleged  is  quite  discouraging  for 
those  who  have  faith  in  the  ability  of  the  human  mind 
to  grasp  truth  with  discrimination. 

Another  argument  made  by  the  advocates  of  this 
theory  is  founded  upon  those  passages  of  Scripture 
that  ascribe  regeneration,  sanctification,  and  cleansing 
to  the  instrumentality  of  the  word.  1  Peter  i,  23 : 
Being  born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  in- 
corruptible, by  the  word  of  God,  which  liveth  and 
abideth  forever."  James  i,  18;  Of  his  own  will  be- 
gat he  us  with  the  word  of  truth,  that  we  should  be 
a  kind  of  first-fruits  of  his  creatures."  1  Cor.  iv,  15 : 
*^For,  though  ye  have  ten  thousand  instructors  in 
Christ,  yet  have  ye  not  many  fathers ;  for  in  Christ 
Jesus  I  have  begotten  you  through  the  gospel."  John 
xvii,  17:  "Sanctify  them  through  the  truth," — and 
others;  but  these  will  suffice,  for  the  same  answer 


208 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


^vill  be  pertinent  to  each  and  all.  It  is  the  old  an- 
swer, already  repeatedly  given,  that  the  admission  of 
the  word  of  truth,  as  an  instriimeutality  to  salvation, 
does  not  necessarily  exclude  other  agencies.  If  it  did, 
it  would  exclude  Christ  as  the  meritorious  means,  as 
well  as  the  Holy  Ghost  as  the  efficacious  means.  But 
the  "  word or  "  gospel,"  here  spoken  of,  is  not  the 
New  Testament  Scriptures,  as  these  persons  suppose, 
but  simply  the  doctrine  of  salvation  through  Christ. 
In  other  words,  that  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling 
the  Avorhl  unto  himself."^  This  was  the  gospel  that 
was  preached  before  unto  Abraham,"!  and  also  to 
those  who  fell  in  the  wilderness.  %  So,  it  was  not 
the  ^'  word "  as  understood  by  Campbell  and  his  fol- 
lowers, but  the  truth  of  the  gospel  simply  in  germ, 
but  vitalized  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  saved  them. 
Again,  James  i,  18,  presents  these  two  agencies — the 
personal  Spirit  and  the  instrumentality — together: 
"Of  his  own  will  begat  he  us  with  the  word  of  truth." 
So  the  apostle  Paul  says:  In  Christ  Jesus  I  have 
begotten  you  through  the  gospel."  Here  are  three 
agencies — a  divine  meritorious  agency,  a  human 
preacher,  and  the  gospel  truth.  In  1  Peter  i, 
22,  23,  we  have  the  relation  of  the  efficacious  agency 
and  the  instrumentality  most  clearly  presented :  "  See- 
ing ye  have  purified  your  souls  in  obeying  the  truth 
through  the  Spirit  unto  unfeigned  love  of  the  breth- 


*2  Cor.  V,  10.    tGal.  iii,  8.    X  Keb.  iv,  2  and  6. 


OBJECTIOSS  COXSIDERED. 


209 


ren,  love  one  another  with  a  pure  heart  fervently; 
being  born  again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  in- 
corruptible, by  the  word  of  God,  which  liveth  and 
abideth  forever/^  Here  it  is  distinctly  stated  that 
their  purification  was  through  the  agency  of  the 
Spirit — purified  your  souls  through  the  Spirit  in 
obeying  the  truth/'  What  is  this  "  incorruptible 
seed,''  of  which  they  were  born  again?  Xot  the  word, 
for  they  were  "born  of"  this  ^'through  the  word;" 
that  is,  by  two  agencies — "  the  incorruptible  seed  "  and 
"  the  word  " — one  efficacious,  the  other  instrumental. 
But  it  may  be  asked:  '^Is  it  not  the  teaching  of  the 
passage  that  Uhe  incorruptible  seed'  is  'the  word?'  for 
it  is  said  to  'live  and  abide  forever.'"  The  Revised 
Version,  in  the  margin,  undoubtedly  gives  the  true 
reading:  "Through  the  word  of  God,  icJio  liveth  and 
abideth."  It  is  "  God  who  liveth  and  abideth."  Cer- 
tain it  is  that  if  "  living  and  abiding "  defines  the 
"word,"  then  "incorruptible  seed"  does  not  define 
it.  "Born  of  God,"^  "born  of  the  Spirit," f  and 
"born  from  above,"  J  are  the  Divine  expressions  for 
the  blessed  state  described  by  Peter.  Xever  "  born 
of  the  word,"  but  "  through  the  word  "  "'  by  the  gos- 
pel," clearly  discriminating  between  instrumentality 
and  efficacious  agency. 

Mr.  Campbell,  in  his  discussion  with  Professor  Rice, 
offers  five  more  so-called  arguments.    It  may  be  here 


^1  John  V.  1.    t.John  iii,  6.    i  John  iii.  3- 
18 


210 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


stated  that  his  arguments  are  selected  for  review,  be- 
cause he  usually  presents  them  in  a  better  style  than 
subsequent  exponents  of  his  theory,  who  have  slav- 
ishly patterned  after  this  man  both  in  doetrines  and 
methods  of  defense.  He  who  reads  Campbell  and 
Rice's  Debate,''  "Christianity  Restored,"  or  "The 
Millennial  Harbinger,"  will  have  absolutely  all  of 
Campbellism,  both  creed  and  arguments. 

The  five  arguments  referred  to  above,  are  in  brief 
as  follows:  First.  Paul  was  commissioned  to  "  open 
the  blind  eyes  "  of  the  Gentiles,  and  turn  them  from 
darkness  unto  light.  *  Second.  "  Whatever  is  as- 
cribed to  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  work  of  salvation  is 
ascribed  to  the  word."  f  Third.  "  Those  who  resisted 
the  word  of  God  are  said  to  resist  the  Spirit  of  God."| 
Fourth.  "That  the  strivings  of  the  prophets  by  their 
words,  are  represented  as  the  strivings  of  the  Holy 
Spirit."  J  Fifth.  "God  nowhere  has  operated  with- 
out his  word,  either  in  the  old  creation  or  in  the 
new."  X  The  first  four  of  these  supposed  arguments 
arc  only  a  repetition  in  a  slightly  different  form  of 
the  idea,  that  the  affirmation  of  mediate  instrumentality 
contradicts  the  personal  agency  of  the  Spirit,  and 
proves  that  he  operates  only  by  means  of  his  word. 
This  has  been  so  fully  refuted  before  that  only  a  passing 
glance  at  the  new  examples  cited  is  required.  If  Paul 
as  an  instrumentality  opening  the  blind  eyes  of  the 


*  Acts  xxvi,  IS.    t  "  Campbell  and  Rice,"  p.  749.    t  Id.  750. 


OBJECTIONS  CONSIDERED. 


211 


Gentiles  proves  that  mediate  means  alone  were  used, 
it  proves  too  much,  for  that  would  exclude  the  word, 
for  the  work  is  all  ascribed  to  Paul.  But  it  may  be 
said  that  he  was  to  preach  the  word.  So  he  was,  but 
with  power  sent  down  from  above.  He  "  received 
the  Holy  Ghost  "  when  Ananias  laid  his  hand  on  him, 
and  received  his  sight  at  the  same  time.  (Acts  ix,  17.) 
He  tells  us,  in  1  Cor.  ii,  4,  how  he  preached  the  gos- 
pel, and  what  made  it  efficacious.  And  my  speech 
and  my  preaching  was  not  with  enticing  words  of 
man's  wisdom,  but  in  demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and 
of  power;"  iii,  6,  I  planted,  Apollos  watered,  but 
God  gave  the  increase. 

And  so  also,  in  pre-Christian  ages,  "the  Spirit  of 
the  Lord  God  anointed  prophets  "  to  preach  the  gos- 
pel."* It  was  not  naked  word  or  words  unattended 
by  spiritual  power,  but  the  word  made  efficient  by 
the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  last  of  these  five  alleged  arguments  is  simply 
the  wholesale  denial  of  one  part  of  the  question  at  issue; 
namely,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  does  operate  separate 
and  apart  from  any  knowledge,  moral  or  spiritual,  but 
not,  as  he  alleges,  apart  from  the  Bible  plan  of  salva- 
tion. If  this  position  is  true,  then  it  follows  that  the 
heathen  are  all  lost ;  or  if  any  are  saved,  they  are  saved 
without  any  spiritual  interposition  whatever  in  their 
behalf,  and  without  any  regeneration,  as  already  shown. 


*  Isa.  Ixi,  1. 


212 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


And,  furthermore,  the  devil  has  more  influence  in  this 
world  than  the  Almighty;  for  he  can,  according  to 
the  teaching  of  the  Bible,  tempt  men  to  sin,  while 
God  can  not  help  them,  except  he  can  secure  some 
one  to  go  to  them  with  the  Bible. 

All  the  arguments  of  Campbellism  have  passed 
in  review,  and  they  are  to  be  summed  up  in  just  two 
assumptions : 

1.  That  the  presentation  of  the  mediate  means — 
the  word — sets  aside  the  immediate  agency  of  the 
Holy  Spirit. 

2.  That  none  have  been  impressed  or  regenerated 
by  the  Spirit,  who  have  not  had  the  Bible  or  some 
part  of  it.  The  first  of  these  is  a  very  obvious  non 
sequitur,  and  the  second  is  false  as  to  fact,  and  leaves 
the  vast  majority  of  men  in  absolute  darkness,  and 
without  the  possibility  of  any  fitness  for  heaven. 


WORK  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 


213 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

OFFICES  AND  WORK  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 

The  writer  is  constrained  to  believe  that  had  not 
logical  consistency  required  it,  Alexander  Campbell 
would  never  have  put  himself  so  squarely  in  antago- 
nism to  all  other  evangelical  Christians,  as  he  has 
done  in  reference  to  the  offices  and  work  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  His  whole  argument  in  the  discussion  with 
Professor  Rice,  as  well  as  his  treatment  of  the  subject 
in  "  The  Christian  System/'  seems  to  be  shaped  so  as 
to  fence  against  the  inevitable  charge  of  a  denial  of 
all  spiritual  impression  outside  of  the  moral  and  in- 
tellectual influence  of  the  Scriptures  upon  the  minds 
of  men.  But  consistency  compels  the  elimination  ot 
all  spiritual  impression  or  impact  from  a  system  that 
has  for  a  fundamental  condition  to  salvation  a  mere 
rite,  as  baptism ;  and  makes  the  performance  of  that 
rite  along  with  intellectual  belief,  repentance,  and  con- 
fession the  evidence  of  pardon.  For  were  the  witness 
of  the  Spirit  admitted,  and  were  the  conditions  per- 
formed, and  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  did  not  follow, 
then  this  fact  would  be  proof  that  the  conditions  were 
not  fulfilled,  and  the  person  seeking  remission  of  sins 
would  be  compelled  to  repeat  them  until  the  Spirit's 


214 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


witness  was  given.  And,  on  the  other  hand,  there 
would  be  left  no  room  for  a  denial  of  the  witness  of 
the  Spirit,  as  claimed  by  those  who,  according  to  this 
theory  have  not  fulfilled  the  conditions ;  that  is,  have 
not  been  baptized  by  immersion  for  the  remission 
of  sins. 

But  it  is  marvelous  that  a  system  so  beset  with 
difficulties  in  explaining  the  Scripture  teachings  con- 
cerning the  work  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  de- 
mands that  the  Church  of  the  Christian  dispensation 
be  robbed  of  the  personal  divine  presence,  should  find 
so  many  supporters.  The  system  runs  atilt  against 
very  many  plain  and  obvious  passages  of  Scripture, 
and  is  out  of  harmony  with  the  whole  scope  of  the 
divine  plan  for  the  w^orld's  evangelization.  The  Scrip- 
tures teach  that  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  are  each 
in  his  divine  personality  engaged  in  the  work  of  bring- 
ing sinners  back  to  righteousness  and  the  favor  of 
God.  The  Father  provides  the  plan  and  sends  the 
Son,  and  Father  and  Son  send  the  Holy  Ghost.  If 
the  Holy  Ghost  is  in  the  world  in  any  sense  different 
from  the  divine  omnipresence,  it  must  be  by  spiritual 
manifestation,  and  this  spiritual  manifestation  is  not 
simply  the  presence  of  some  words  revealed  eighteen 
hundred  years  ago;  for  in  that  sense  he  has  been  in 
the  w^orld  from  the  time  of  the  promise  made  to  our 
first  parents. 

It  is  hard  to  conceive  that  any  one  can  really  bring 
himself  to  believe  that  the  only  presence  of  the  Holy 


WORK  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 


215 


Ghost  in  the  world  is  the  presence  of  the  Bible  in  the 
world.  The  Bible  is  no  more  the  Spirit  of  God  than 
the  writings  of  a  man  are  his  spirit,  and  yet  when 
the  doctrine  of  Campbellism  in  this  respect  is  disrobed 
of  the  Scriptural  verbiage  in  which  they  seek  to 
clothe  it,  the  sum  and  substance  of  it  is  this:  The 
Holy  Spirit  gave  the  Word,  and  put  all  the  power 
and  eftectiveness  that  it  has  in  it  when  he  gave  it; 
and  since  then  in  no  sense  is  he  with  it  any  more 
than  the  deceased  writer  is  in  his  words  now.  So  that 
whatever  of  conviction  the  sinner  is  made  to  receive 
comes  from  the  Word  alone ;  and  whatever  of  comfort, 
joy,  and  peace  the  prayerful  saint  receives,  is  derived 
from  the  naked  promises  of  the  Word,  by  process  ot 
intellectual  deduction — a  very  cold  and  cheerless  doc- 
trine, sufficient  to  chill  the  ardor  of  the  most  devout 
saint.  But,  thanks  be  to  our  gracious  Father,  the 
saint  knows  it  is  not  true. 

We  will  now  consider  the  offices  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
as  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures:  1.  The  source  of  in- 
spiration. 2.  The  source  of  miraculous  gifts.  Thes^ 
are  special  manifestations,  and  ceased  with  the  giving 
of  divine  revelation.  3.  Reproving  the  sinner.  4. 
Regenerating,  baptizing,  cleansing,  purifying,  sancti- 
fying, sealing  the  penitent  believer.  5.  Witnessing 
to  his  adoption.  6.  Comforting,  helping,  teaching 
the  saint. 

Now,  all  these  offices,  except  the  first  two,  are  in 
a  diversity  of  w^ays  set  forth  in  the  Scriptures  as  be- 


216 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


longing  to  the  entire  gospel  dispensation.  Far  back, 
toward  the  morning  of  human  history,  God  said  :  ^ly 
Spirit  shall  not  always  strive  with  men/'*  So  the 
Psalmist,  David,  under  intense  conviction  for  his  great 
sin,  prayed :  Take  not  thy  Holy  Spirit  from  me."  f 
This  was  the  reproving  Spirit  to  which  he  was  cling- 
ing, for  he  immediately  prays :  Restore  unto  me  the 
joy  of  thy  salvation,  and  uphold  me  with  thy  free 
Spirit."  X  So  also  the  Savior  promised  that  when  the 
Holy  Ghost  came  in  fuller  manifestation  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  he  should  thereafter  "  reprove  the  world 
of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment."  The  im- 
possibility of  this  being  in  any  other  sense  than  by 
personal  impression  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  it  was  the 
Comforter  that  was  to  come  on  Pentecost,  that  was  to 
do  this  work;  and  that  manifestation  is  confessedly  a 
personality.  The  word  as  an  instrumentality  had  al- 
ready in  great  measure  come.  This  also  is  the  same 
office  that  is  set  forth  in  2  Thess.  ii,  13:  '^God  hath 
from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to  salvation  through 
sanctitication  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth  and 
1  Peter,  i,  2 :  Elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge 
of  God,  the  Father,  through  sanctitication  of  the  Spirit 
unto  obedience,  and  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ."  In  these  two  passages  the  Holy  Spirit,  by 
his  convicting  agency,  is  said  to  set  apart  the  sinner 
to  faith,  cleansing,  and  salvation.     Both  the  Holy 


*Gen.  vi,  3.    t  Psa.  li,  11.    :  Psa.  li,  12. 


WORK  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 


217  i 


Spirit  and  the  truth  are  mentioned ;  the  inference  is 
therefore  necessary,  that  these  refer  to  two  separate 
agencies,  the  one  operating  on  the  mind  and  judgment, 
the  other  on  heart  and  conscience.  It  is  appropriate 
to  remark  at  this  juncture  that  the  Spirit's  sanctifying 
■work  is  continuous,  so  long  as  the  sinner  permits;  that 
is,  begun  in  consecration,  it  continues  on  through  regen- 
eration and  throughout  the  entire  life.  It  is  the  Spirit's 
work  to  sanctify,  to  make  holy — sanctus,  holy  ;  facere, 
to  make.  And  this  begins  with  the  first  impression 
made  by  the  Spirit  and  yielded  to  by  the  sinner,  and 
continues  on  until  the  great  work  is  wrought  in  a 
character  symmetrical  in  righteousness. 

In  Acts  xvi,  14,  we  have  a  most  unanswerable 
example  of  an  immediate  divine  influence  operating 
upon  the  hearts  outside  the  word,  and  even  before  the 
word,  as  a  preparation  for  its  honest  reception.  ''And 
a  certain  woman  named  Lydia,  a  seller  of  purple,  of 
the  city  of  Thyatira,  which  worshiped  God,  heard  us : 
whose  heart  the  Lord  opened,  that  she  attended  unto 
the  things  that  were  spoken  of  Paul."  Could  the 
preparatory  influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit  be  more 
clearly  set  forth  ?  The  Lord  opened  her  heart,  so  that 
she  attended  to  the  word  of  truth.  It  was  not  the 
word  that  opened  her  heart/'  for  that  came  afterward ; 
and  the  divine  influence  was  the  cause  of  her  listen- 
ing with  attention  to  that  word.  With  this  fact  of 
inspired  history  agree  the  declarations  of  Paul  con- 
cerning the  success  of  his  ministry  in  reaching  men. 

,  19 


218 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


Ill  1  Cor.  iii,  6,  he  says :  "  I  have  planted,  Apollos 
Avatered ;  but  God  gave  the  increase. How  did  Paul 
plant  ?  The  word  of  truth  in  the  minds  of  his  hearers; 
and  in  the  same  manner  Apollos  watered  it.  How 
did  God  give  the  increase?  By  his  Spirit  operating 
with  this  word  on  human  hearts  in  conviction,  en- 
treaty, and  reproof.  He  reproved  of  sin  because 
they  believed  not  in  Christ ;  of  righteousness,''  be- 
cause the  Son  of  God  was  no  longer  in  the  world  as  a 
teacher  of  men,  but  had  committed  this  work  to  the 
Holy  Ghost;  of  judgment,"  because  the  prince  of 
this  world — that  is,  the  ruling  spirit  of  this  world — 
should  be  brought  under  condemnation  in  the  hearts 
of  men  by  the  Spirit  of  God. 

The  Scriptures  ascribe  to  the  immediate  work  of 
the  Spirit  regeneration,  baptism,  cleansing,  purifying, 
sanctifying,  sealing.  These  terms  represent  aspects 
of  the  same  work  wrought  in  the  heart  of  the  believ- 
ing penitent,  and  present  an  overwhelming  body  of 
proof  of  personal  contact  of  the  Divine  Spirit  with  the 
spirit  of  the  believer.  The  terms,  with  possibly  one 
exception,  sanctification,  contain  the  idea  of  actual 
impact.  Regeneration  is  a  radical  change  implying 
divine  power;  baptism  is  an  impartation  of  the  bap- 
tismal element  to  the  subject;  cleansing  and  purify- 
ing, as  conceptions,  have  their  origin  in  the  fact  of 
actual  contact  with  a  cleansing  element;  and  sealing 
is  the  direct  impression  of  the  seal  upon  the  instru- 
ment attested  thereby.    Unless  we  have,  in  the  plain 


WORK  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 


9A9 


narratives  and  in  the  unembellished  discussions  of  the 
Scriptures,  the  boldest  metaphors  and  the  wildest  hy- 
perboles, we  must  regard  these  expressions  as  setting 
forth  facts  of  personal  experience,  and  as  referring  to 
impressions  made  not  by  an  instrumentality,  but  by 
the  personal  spirit. 

Regeneration  is  the  translation  of  the  Greek 
Trahyyeveata^  which  occurs  twice  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment (Matt,  xix,  28 ;  Titus  iii,  5) ;  but  it  can  scarcely 
be  called  in  question  that  yevvdco  ducodsv  ("  born  from 
above of  John  iii ;  ix  too  dedb  yevudco  born  of 
God  of  John  V,  1,  and  others ;  and  dvayevpdco  ("be- 
ing born  again of  1  Peter  i,  23,  refer  to  precisely 
the  same  thing.  The  phrases,  "  begotten  of  God,'^  in 
John  V,  1,  and  18,  are  translations  of  the  same  word 
that  in  that  chapter  and  elsewhere  is  translated  "  born 
of  God.''  So  also  "begotten  again''  in  1  Peter  i,  3, 
is  a  translation  of  the  same  word  rendered  "born 
again"  in  1  Pet.  i,  23.  When,  therefore,  Mr.  Camp- 
bell attempts  to  make  a  distinction  between  being 
"  begotten  of  God,''  and  being  "  born  of  God,"  as  he 
does  in  "  Christian  System,"  pp.  201  and  207,  he  makes 
a  distinction  where  there  is  absolutely  no  diflPerence. 
Being  born  of  God  and  being  begotten  of  God  are 
one  and  the  same  thing,  and  present  the  whole  divine 
process  from  the  first  to  the  last.  FevvdcOj  in  the 
active  voice,  may  express  the  divine  side,  the  Spirit's 
work,  while  the  passive  voice  expresses  the  result, 
which  is  a  new  birth ;  not  a  mere  begetting,  a  begin- 


220 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


ning  of  life,  but  the  transition  into  the  complete  new 
life.  It  is  but  little  short  of  ridiculous  to  talk  of 
"  first  begotten  with  Spirit,imprognated  with  the  word, 
and  then  born  of  the  water." It  may  support  his 
theory,  but  it  is  a  long  remove  from  being  Scriptural. 

Regeneration  is  essentially  a  spiritual  process. 
The  Savior's  first  declaration  is :  "  Except  a  man  be 
born  from  above,  he  can  not  see  the  kingdom  of  God.'' 
^' .'hwdev  does  not  mean  again  ;  and  how  any  one  can 
say  that  Xicodemus  plainly  understood  it  in  the 
sense  of  again/'  because  he  replies,  How  can  a  man 
be  born  again  when  he  is  old  ?  He  can  not  enter  a 
second  time  into  his  mother's  womb  and  be  born,"  is 
to  the  writer  marvelous.  If  diycodsv  was  understood 
by  him  in  the  sense  of  again,  he  would  have  repeated 
it  both  times  with  the  verb  je'^'^dco.  But  the  render- 
ing is  not  necessarily  essential  to  the  argument. 
"  Born  again,"  as  defined  by  the  Savior,  is  a  spiritual 
w^ork:  "That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh,  is  flesh;  and 
that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit,  is  spirit."  As  has 
been  shown  in  a  former  chapter,  "  born  of  the  water," 
spoken  of  in  verse  5,  is  no  part  of  the  spiritual  pro- 
cess, for  it  is  not  named  where  the  result  of  the  work 
is  spoken  of  in  verse  6 ;  namely,  "  that  which  is  born 
of  the  Spirit,  is  spirit,"  or  spiritual.  It  should  read, 
"  That  which  is  born  of  water  and  the  Spirit,  is  spirit," 
if  water  is  anything  more  than  a  symbol  iu  the  ])ro- 


Christian  System,"  p.  201. 


WORK  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 


221 


cess,  and  the  essential  part  of  it,  according  to  Camp- 
bell and  his  followers. 

In  verse  8  the  mysteriousness  of  the  spiritual  pro- 
cess is  evinced  by  the  Divine  Teacher.  "  The  wind 
bloweth  where  it  listeth,  and  thou  hearest  the  sound 
thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh  or  whither 
it  goeth;  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit.'' 
Mr.  Braden,  in  his  debate  with  Dr.  Hughey,  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  rendered  this :  The 
Spirit  breathes  where  he  pleases,  and  you  hear  his 
voice ;  you  can  not  tell  whence  he  comes  and  whither 
he  goes.  In  this  way  is  every  one  begotten  who  is 
begotten  of  the  Spirit.''  *  For  a  wholly  gratuitous 
manipulation  of  the  sacred  record  to  make  it  fit  into 
a  preconceived  theory,  it  is  doubtful  if  its  like  can  be 
found.  What  is  the  imaginary  basis  of  this  render- 
ing? IJusb/iaj  translated  wind,  is  also  the  word  used 
for  spirit ;  and  then  it  is  assumed  that  Truiat  may  be 
translated  to  breathe,  although  uncompounded  with  the 
preposition  iu,  it  is  never  used  for  breathe  in  the  New 
Testament ;  and  {pcovTjU  may  be  translated  voice.  But 
let  us  look  at  this  translation,  and  see  if  it  teaches 
anything.  In  what  sense  does  the  Spirit  ^'  breathe 
where  he  pleases,"  and  how  do  we  "  hear  his  voice 
how  is  it  that  w^e  '^are  not  able  to  tell  whence  he 
comes  and  whither  he  goes ;"  and  how  does  all  this 
describe  the  spiritual  birth  wrought  by  water?    It  is 


*"  Hughey  and  Braden  Debate,"  p.  461. 


222 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


to  be  observed,  if  their  theory  of  regeneration  is  the 
correct  one,  we  know  all  about  the  breathing^  going, 
and  coming  of  the  Spirit.  Again,  what  unjustifiable 
liberty  is  taken  with  the  text,  when  the  last  sentence 
is  translated  "  in  this  way  is  every  one  begotten  who 
is  begotten  of  the  Spirit/'  AVhere,  in  the  text,  does 
he  find  the  words  "  who  is  begotten  ?"  There  is  not 
one  word  in  the  text  to  answer  to  this  phrase.  A 
theory  must  be  badly  beset  to  be  compelled  to  resort 
to  such  a  handling  of  the  inspired  text. 

The  obvious  meaning  to  any  one  who  has  not  a 
theory  to  sustain,  is,  that  the  mysterious  movement 
of  the  Avind  recognized  by  the  physical  hearing  as 
fact,  is  a  symbol  of  the  operation  of  the  Spirit  in  the 
work  of  regeneration,  felt  in  the  experience  of  the 
soul,  but  still  incomprehensible  in  the  mode  of  its  im- 
partation. 

Mr.  Campbell  has  a  saying  in  regard  to  this  matter 
that  is  uniformly  repeated  by  his  followers,  and  is 
believed  by  them  to  be  finally  crushing  as  an  argu- 
ment. It  is  this :  "  All  must  admit  that  no  one  can 
be  born  again  of  that  which  he  receives.''  ^  So  also 
"  To  call  the  receiving  of  any  Spirit,  or  any  influence, 
or  energy,  or  any  operation  on  the  heart  of  man,  re- 
generation, is  an  abuse  of  speech,  as  well  as  a  depart- 
ure from  the  diction  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  calls  noth- 
ing regeneration,  except  the  act  of  immersion.'^  f  The 


*  "Christian  System,"  p.  20.    t  Id.  pp.  202,  202. 


WORK  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST, 


223 


writer  has  carefully  pondered  the  dictum,  to  get,  if 
possible,  an  inkling  of  its  meaning,  and  an  apprehen- 
sion of  some  of  the  logical  force  that  is  supposed  to 
belong  to  it;  but  has  entirely  failed.  Why  can  not 
the  dead  sinner  be  born  again  out  of  sin  unto  right- 
eousness by  receiving  the  quickening  Spirit?  "For 
it  is  the  Spirit  that  quickeneth."  *  Even  when  we 
were  dead  in  sins  hath  quickened  us  together  with 
Christ/' t  So  also  Col.  ii,  13;  2  Cor.  iii,  6.  But  let 
us  apply  this  dictum  to  Campbell's  theory.  Peni- 
tent believers  receive  the  word  of  the  gospel.  Acts 
viii,  14;  xi,  1;  xv4i,  11,  et  al.;  and  yet  these  persons 
tell  us  that  we  are  born  again  of  the  Avord.  "The 
word  of  God  is  the  seed  of  which  we  are  born  again, 
or  renewed  in  heart  and  life."  %  So,  Mr.  Campbell 
being  judge,  we  can  be  born  of  w^hat  we  receive. 
More  thau  this,  baptism  is  something  received,  some- 
thing in  which  the  candidate  is  passive.  Hence  the 
command  to  sinners  is  to  be  baptized.  He  speaks  of 
the  "  act  of  immersion "  being  the  new  birth  ;  but 
whose  act? — the  candidate's?  No.  The  administra- 
tor's. The  candidate  receives  the  immersion  at  his 
hands,  and  if  this  is  a  new  birth  he  is  born  of  what 
he  receives. 

In  entire  agreement  with  the  essential  spirituality 
of  this  new  birth  is  the  teaching  of  the  apostle  Paul 
in  Titus  iii,  5,  6.    "Not  by  w^orks  of  righteousness 


John  vi,  63.   t  Eph.  ii,  5.   %  "  Campbell  and  Rice,"  p.  6G4. 


224 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBFAJJSM. 


Avliich  we  have  done,  but  according  to  bis  mercy  batb 
be  saved  us  by  tbe  wasbing  of  regeneration,  and  tbe 
renewing  of  tbe  Holy  Gbost,  wbicb  be  sbed  on  us 
abundantly  tbrougb  Jesus  Cbrist  our  Savior." 

Mr.  Campbell  and  bis  followers  may  make  mucb 
of  tbe  fact  tbat  commentators  generally  understand 
that  a  reference  is  made  to  baptism  in  tbe  phrase 
washing  of  regeneration.''  It  is  far  from  being 
clear  tbat  such  is  the  case.  Commentators  generally 
follow  in  the  trend  of  thought  or  opinion  marked  out 
by  their  predecessors.  Baptismal  regeneration  has 
been  taught  for  many  centuries  by  the  Church  of 
Rome.  It  was  therefore  natural  that  her  commen- 
tators should  see  this  doctrine  in  all  passages  where 
regeneration  was  spoken  of,  and  especially  where  it 
was  s])oken  of  as  a  '^washing.''  The  Church  of  Eng- 
land, and  tbe  Protestant  bodies  of  Europe  generally 
adopted  this  error  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  Hence  it 
is  not  at  all  strange  that  commentators  generally  should 
conceive  that  baptism  is  here  referred  to;  and  their 
successors  who  were  in  Churches  that  do  not  accept 
the  dogma  of  baptismal  regeneration,  should  be  in- 
clined, if  possible,  to  accommodate  their  opinions  with 
views  so  uniformly  put  forth.  But  is  it  not  time  that 
we  should  break  away  from  the  trammels  of  mediaeval 
interpretation,  and  determine  these  by  common  sense 
principles?  Tbe  very  language  of  the  text  implies 
that  nothing  physical  is  referred  to.  ^' The  washing  of 
regeneration"  is  put  in  direct  antithesis  to  "works  of 


WORK  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 


225 


righteousness'^  which  we  have  done.  If  so,  it  (bap- 
tism) is  not  "the  washing  of  regeneration/'  because 
that  is  contrasted  with  it.  Also,  we  are  told  that 
this  "washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost "  is  something  God  has  done ;  now,  what 
we  have  done  and  what  God  has  done  are  in  con- 
trast— in  logical  antithesis.  Again,  whatever  it  was 
that  saved  us,  was  of  him.  "He  saved  us."  How? 
By  what  "he  shed  on  us  abundantly,"  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Savior.  Our  baptism  by  water  is  some- 
thing he  did  not  do ;  but  the  washing  of  regeneration 
was  something  that  he  did  perform.  It  really  does 
appear  that  no  stronger  language  or  more  forceful 
presentation  could  be  used  to  exclude  baptism  by 
water. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  Why  use  the  term  "  wash- 
ing?" To  answer  this  it  is  sufficient  to  ask  why  not 
use  the  term  baptism,  if  that  is  what  is  meant  ?  Camp- 
bell and  his  followers  say  "baptism  is  the  washing  ot 
regeneration."  The  fact  is,  washing  is  used  with  jus- 
tification when  it  is  clearly  defined,  as  by  the  Spirit, 
1  Cor.  vi,  11:  "And  such  were  some  of  you,  but  ye 
are  washed,  but  ye  are  sanctified,  but  ye  are  justified 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  ot 
our  God." 

But  suppose,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that 
baptism  is  alluded  to  in  the  phrase  "washing  of  re- 
generation," does  the  passage  not  emphatically  teach 
us  that  "the  Holy  Ghost  is  shed"  upon  those  that 


226 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


are  savetl,  and  that  it  is  by  this  we  are  saved,  because 
this  is  what  God  docs  of  'Miis  mercy?"  Now,  if 
this  doctrine  that  denies  the  immediate  impression  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  tlie  work  of  regeneration  be  true, 
and  the  "renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  is  the  influ- 
ence of  the  word,  leading  to  faith  and  repentance,  it 
follows  tliat  we  are  saved  first  by  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  then  by  the  'Svashing  of  regeneration;'* 
that  is,  the  renewing  mnst  come  before  the  baptism. 
In  other  words,  as  before  shown,  we  mnst  be  born  of 
the  Sj)irit,  or  beg()tten  of  the  Word,"  in  the  style 
of  these  teachers  before  we  are  "born  of  the  water." 

In  fact,  no  theory  of  interpretation  is  more  pro- 
foundly beset  with  diffi(nilties,  and  more  effectually 
plunges  its  advocates  into  an  inextricable  tangle  of 
absurdities  than  does  this  that  makes  bajitism  an  es- 
sential part  of  the  work  of  regeneration,  and,  because 
of  this,  eliminates  the  immediate  influence  of  the  Spirit 
from  any  |)art  of  the  work. 

In  harmony  with  this  conception  of  a  sj)iritual 
birth  into  the  kingdom  of  Ghrist,  is  the  conception  of 
quickening,  met  with  in  several  instances  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. Eph.  ii,  4,  o:  "  But  God,  who  is  rich  in  mercy, 
for  his  great  love  wherewith  he  loved  us,  even  when 
we  were  dead  in  sins,  hath  quickened  us  together 
with  Christ."  The  Greek  ^(ouzocioj  really  means  to 
give  life;  a  term  of  very  radical  significance  when  ap- 
plied to  the  new  birth.  It  is  also  clearly  defined  in 
the  context,  in  the  trend  of  the  apostle's  discussion. 


WOBK  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 


227 


The  apostle  parenthetically  says,  in  the  same  verse: 
*^  By  grace  are  ye  saved;"  and  then,  in  verses  8-10, 
says:  For  by  grace  are  ye  saved,  through  faith,  and 
that  not  of  yourselves ;  it  is  the  gift  of  God :  not  of 
works,  lest  any  man  should  boast.  For  we  are  his 
workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good 
works.''  Now,  here  it  is  first  said  our  salvation  is 
not  of  ourselves;  and  in  the  second  place,  "not  of 
works ;"  and  in  the  third  place,  that  spiritually  "  we 
are  his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto 
good  works.''  No  language  could  more  eflfectually 
teach  the  immediate  work  of  the  Spirit  in  our  salva- 
tion than  does  this. 

Then,  following  on  in  the  same  discussion,  the 
apostle  says,  verse  18:  "For  through  him  we  both 
have  access  by  one  Spirit  unto  the  Father."  "  Through 
him"  means  through  Christ.  It  is  through  Christ, 
and  by  the  agency  of  the  Spirit,  we  are  saved,  and,  as 
children,  are  permitted  to  approach  the  Father;  for 
"  likewise  the  Spirit  also  helpeth  our  infirmities :  for 
we  know  not  what  we  should  pray  for  as  we  ought; 
but  the  Spirit  itself  maketh  intercession  for  us  with 
groanings  Avhich  can  not  be  uttered."^  If  the  apos- 
tle is  here  simply  aiming  to  teach  the  mediate  w^ork 
of  the  Spirit  through  the  word  alone,  he  has  certainly 
employed  strange  language  for  a  subject  so  easy  of 
statement  as  this — "quickened,"  "created,"  "access 


*  Rom.  viii,  26. 


228 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


to  God,"  and  in  verse  20,  "  a  habitation  of  God  through 
the  Spirit."  It  is  difficult  to  find  language,  even  in 
the  visions  oi  the  prophets,  more  purely  hyperbolical 
than  this,  if  the  apostle  only  means  the  effect  of  the 
word  on  the  judgments  and  consciences  of  men. 


BAPTISM  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 


229 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

BAPTISM  OF  THE  HOIvY  GHOST. 

The  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which,  according; 
to  the  Inspired  Word,  "washes,''  "cleanses,''  "puri- 
fies," "sanctifies,"  "seals,"  and  "anoints,"  is  em- 
ployed in  these  several  forms  of  representation  to 
teach  the  immediate  contact  of  the  Holy  Spirit  with 
the  soul  in  the  work  of  regeneration  and  sanctification. 

But  right  at  this  point  Campbellism  is  prolific  of 
contradictions.  First,  its  followers  deny  that  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  "gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost"  promised  to  the  Church.  Secondly,  that  this 
baptism  was  designed  to  be  perpetual  in  the  Church. 
There  are  some  very  cogent  reasons,  in  the  scheme  of 
doctrine  they  advocate,  why  they  should  maintain 
this.  The  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  something 
that  makes  sad  havoc  with  the  idea  of  an  exclusive, 
dipping  baptism;  and  to  perpetuate  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  the  Church  as  a  reality  would 
make  very  forceful  the  doctrine  inculcated  by  the  ad- 
vocates of  affusion  in  general,  that  water  baptism  is 
designed  to  be  a  perpetual  symbol  of  the  purifying 
ministration  of  the  Spirit,  and  not  a  representation 
of  a  death  and  burial — and  that  the  death  and  burial 
of  Christ.    And,  again,  a  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 


230 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


cleansing  from  sin,  stands  in  the  way  of  remission 
of  sin,  grounded  in  water  baptism  as  an  essential  con- 
dition. For  if  a  direct  communication  of  the  Spirit 
were  a  requisite  in  each  case  of  regeneration,  such 
communication  must  be  a  necessary  concomitant  (jf 
water  baptism,  else  there  would  be  a  conflict.  So 
that  it  is  true  that,  with  logical  consistency,  Campbell- 
ism  must  deny  to  the  Church  this  her  heritage  in 
the  gospel. 

But  lest  it  be  thought  that  this  is  a  misrepresenta- 
tion of  their  views,  a  few  quotations  from  approved 
authors  among  them  will  be  given.  Mr.  Bradeu 
says :  *  "  All  who  pray  for  a  baptism  of  the  Spirit  now, 
pray  not  according  to  knowledge  of  the  word,  for  that 
they  never  will  receive.  Those  who  pray  for  it  and 
claim  it,  should  show  that  it  was  promised  to  all  be- 
lievers in  all  time ;  that  they  can  work  miracles,  as 
all  could  who  were  thus  baptized  anciently.  This 
baptism  was  extraordinary,  and  has  ceased."  Another 
author  says  if  ''In  the  first  place,  the  work  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  the  salvation  of  sinners,  is  not  once,  in 
all  the  Bible,  called  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit.  Let 
the  reader  remember  this.  Secondly,  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  only  promised  to  the  apostles; 
and,  thirdly,  Jesus  emphatically  said  the  world  could 
not  receive  the  Holy  Spirit  in  this  form.   (See  John 


*"  Hughey  ami  Briulen  Debate,"  \k  458. 
tBrowder's  "  Pulpit,"  pp.  IK),  97. 


BAPTISM  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 


231 


xiv,  16,  17.)"  The  writer  has  had  several  discus- 
sions with  accepted  exponents  of  their  doctrine,  and 
has  found  them  uniformly  to  maintain  the  theory 
above  given.  It  is  very  evident  to  the  thoughtful 
reader  that  if  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is,  as 
these  persons  claim,  a  miracle-working  endowment 
alone,  it  must  not  only  be  limited  to  the  apostolical 
days,  but  must  be  limited  in  those  days  to  those  who 
wrought  miracles.  Hence,  an  effort  is  made  to  show 
that  the  baptism  given  on  Pentecost  was  confined  to 
the  twelve  apostles.  Professor  McGarvey,  in  his  com- 
mentary on  Acts,  sub  loco,  says  that  the  antecedent  of 
they  in  Acts  ii  is  the  twelve  apostles.  "  It  would 
read  thus:  'The  lot  fell  upon  Matthias,  and  he  was 
numbered  together  with  the  eleven  apostles.  And 
when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come,  they  were 
all  with  one  accord  in  one  place.'  It  is  indisputable 
that  the  antecedent  to  they  is  the  term  apostles,'^  This 
entirely  gratuitous  assumption  is  made  to  save  a  theory. 
If  they  is  limited  to  the  twelve  apostles,  where,  at  this 
time,  were  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus,  and  the  rest  of 
the  one  hundred  and  twenty  mentioned  in  ch.  i,  15? 
Were  they  with  one  accord  in  another  place?  They 
had  been  meeting  with  the  apostles.  On  what  author- 
ity are  they  now  counted  out?  Be  it  remembered  that 
the  pronoun  they,  in  the  first  verse  of  this  chapter,  de- 
fines simply  the  assembly,  and,  if  this  comment  is  cor- 
rect, the  rest  of  the  one  hundred  and  twenty  must  be 
excluded  from  the  assembly.    It  will  be  a  startling 


232 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPRELLTSM. 


revelation  to  niany  Christians  to  learn  that  only  the 
twelve  apostles  were  present  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 

But  there  are  other  insuperable  objections  to  this 
interpretation.  In  ch.  i,  A,  Jesus  said  to  the  as- 
sembled disciples  on  the  day  of  ascension  :  "  But  wait 
for  the  promise  of  the  Father,  which,  saith  he,  ye 
have  heard  of  me.  For  John  truly  baptized  with 
water;  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost, 
not  many  days  hence."  When  and  how  was  this 
promise  made  ?  By  the  prophets  Joel  and  John  the 
Baptist.  Joel  ii,  28  :  ^^And  it  shall  come  to  pass  after- 
ward that  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh  ;  and 
your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall  prophesy,  your 
old  men  shall  dream  dreams,  and  your  young  men  shall 
see  visions."  The  Baptist,  in  Matt,  iii,  11:  "  I  in- 
deed baptize  you  with  water  unto  repentance;  but  ho 
that  Cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than  I,  Vhose  shoes 
I  am  not  worthy  to  bear :  he  shall  baptize  you  with 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  fire."  Observe  now  to 
whom  this  promise  was  made,  and  the  tenor  of  it;  I 
will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh.''^  Not  upon  the 
twelve  apostles,  nor  upon  a  few  Jews,  and  then  upon 
a  few  Gentiles  of  the  household  of  Cornelius,  but 
"  upon  all  flcsh.^^  So  also  in  the  promise,  as  given  by 
the  Baptist,  we  have  the  same  comprehensiveness: 
"He  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  Did 
the  Baptist  teach  that  Christ  should  only  baptize  the 
twelve  apostles?  Here  is  another  troublesome  pro- 
noun for  Professor  McGarvey,  which  it  will  be  ex- 


BAPTISM  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 


233 


ceedingly  difficult  to  limit  sufficiently  to  save  the 
theory  from  helpless  ruin.  Again,  'Uhe  promise^' 
that  is  spoken  of  in  ch.  i,  4,  is  also  spoken  of  in  ch. 
ii,  38,  39 :  "And  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  For  the  promise  is  unto  yon,  and  to  your 
children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many 
as  the  Lord  your  God  shall  call."  Now,  Campbell- 
ite  expositors  are  wont  to  make  a  distinction  between 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.*  But  the  promise  spoken  of  by  the  Sav- 
ior was  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  this  promise 
Peter  told  his  hearers  was  unto  them  and  unto  their 
children,  "and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,''  and  this 
promise  he  had  just  called  the  "gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  He  certainly  did  not  mean  the  word  of  di- 
vine truth,  for  if  they  repented  and  confessed  Christ, 
and  were  baptized,  as  these  persons  teach,  they  had 
before  these  acts  received  the  word  of  truth.  The 
promise  was  something  they  were  to  receive  as  a  re- 
alization afterwards.  Again,  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  on  the  household  of  Cornelius  is — Acts  x,  45 — 
called  the  "gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  and  in  ch. 
XV,  8,  it  is  called  the  witness  to  their  hearts  of  their 
adoption  into  the  kingdom  of  Christ.  "And  God, 
which  knoweth  the  hearts,  bare  them  witness,  giving 
them  the  Holy  Ghost,  even  as  he  did  unto  us."  In 
ch.  xi,  16,  17,  this  outpouring  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is 


*See  "  McGarvey  on  Acts,"  Browder's    Pulpit,"  p.  51. 
20 


234 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


])oth  called  a  baptism  and  "  the  like  gift  as  unto  us," 
and  the  promise  of  the  Savior  was  especially  referred 
to.  So  also  the  apostle  Paul  says  to  his  Ephesian 
brethren,  Eph.  i,  13:  "After  that  ye  believed  ye  were 
also  sealed  with  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise."  The 
promised  baptism,  or  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  a  seal 
and  tcitness  to  all  Christians. 

But  to  make  assurance  on  this  matter  overwhelm- 
ingly sure,  we  have  the  universality  of  this  baptism 
affirmed  in  language  so  complete  that  it  is  marvelous 
that  any  one  should  attempt  to  advocate  a  theory  so 
squarely  contradicted  by  divine  inspiration.  It  is  not 
possible  to  make  a  stronger  statement  of  the  univer- 
sality of  Holy  Ghost  baptism  on  the  Church  of  Christ 
than  is  found  in  1  Cor.  xii,  13:  "  For  l)y  one  Spirit 
are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  we  be  Jews 
or  Gentiles,  whether  we  be  bond  or  free  ;  and  have 
all  been  made  to  drink  into  one  Spirit."  Here  is  a 
formulated  statement  of  a  truth.  The  "  one  body  "  is 
the  Church  of  Christ;  that  is,  his  spiritual  body.  And 
all  who  are  in  Christ  "  have  obtained  this  blessed 
relation  by  baptism,  "  by  one  Spirit,"  "  whether  Jews 
or  Gentiles,  bond  or  free." 

It  is  sought  to  break  the  force  of  this  plain  text 
by  a  new  rendering  of  the  text.  Mr.  Braden  hints  at 
it :  *  "  By  the  direction  of  one  Spirit,  or  in  accordance 
to  the  command  of  the  Spirit,  we  are  baptized,"  that 


♦  "Hnghey  and  Braden,"  p.  462. 


BAPTISM  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.  235 


is,  by  water.  Mr.  Browder  says :  *  The  Greek 
preposition  en  is  employed  to  express  agency  or  au- 
thority;  hence,  by  the  authority  of  one  Spirit  you  were 
all  baptized  into  one  body."  In  the  first  place,  by 
the  agency  of,  and  by  the  authority  of,  are  two  rad- 
ically diiferent  ideas,  and  the  therefore'^  of  the  sup- 
posed explanation  is  a  total  non  sequitur.  To  confound 
author  and  agent  is  a  piece  of  exegetical  legerdemain 
that  we  can  not  permit  to  pass  unnoticed.  In  the 
second  place,  the  preposition  iv,  with  the  dative  iv 
kvc  IlueijfmTiy  defines  instrumentality,  and  is  precisely 
the  phraseology  that  is  used  everywhere  the  baptism 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  spoken  of  In  Matt,  iii,  11,  ii^ 
IIveufiaTc  kjiw.  So  also  Mark  i,  8;  Luke  iii,  16 ;  John 
i,  33;  Acts  i,  5,  and  xi,  16.  .  If,  then,  Iv  means  by 
the  authority  of,"  we  shall  have  some  choice  reading 
in  these  passages.  Take  a  sample.  Matt,  iii,  11  :  He 
shall  baptize  you  by  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  fire."  The  reader  may  ask.  Are  these  scholars  that 
attempt  these  manipulations  of  the  text  in  the  interest 
of  a  theory  ?  They  claim  to  be,  and  are  put  forward 
as  exponents  of  this  doctrine.  They  also  speak  with 
great  positiveness  in  promulgating  their  interpretations 
of  the  inspired  text. 

But  there  is  still  another  way  of  a  more  recent  dis- 
covery, by  which  it  is  sought  to  avoid  the  difficulty. 
D.  R.  Dungan,  president  of  Drake  University,  at  Des 


tBrowder's  "Pulpit,"  p.  77. 


236 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


Moines,  Iowa,  in  a  little  romance  written  by  him 
in  advocacy  of  this  theory  of  doctrine,  makes  his 
heroine  to  say  *  of  the  promise  contained  in  Acts  ii, 
17  :  "  With  a  literal  translation  it  wonld  read,  ^  I  will 
•pour  out  jrom  my  Spirits  This  rendition  we  have 
heard  from  some  of  their  ministers,  so  that  it  seems 
to  be  thought  by  them  to  be  a  way  out  of  the  dif- 
ficulty. 

This  rendering  is  founded  upon  the  supposed  mean- 
ing of  the  preposition  aTTo  in  Acts  ii,  17  :  ix-^eo)  0.7:0 
Toi)  nveu/xaTo^  fioo.  This  is  made  use  of  in  this  way  : 
It  is  not  the  Holy  Spirit  that  is  poured  out,  but  his 
truth  or  revelation  that  comes  from  him.  Hence  what 
is  poured  out  is  the  word.  But  it  is  difficult  to  see 
how  this  helps  the  case ;  for  if  it  is  the  word  of  inspi- 
ration which  is  here  "  poured  out  in  this  baptism, 
then  it  follows  that  not  only  Christians  are  baptized 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  but  impenitent  sinners  also,  for 
they  receive  this  word,  which  comes  from  the  Holy 
Ghost.  But  admitting,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument, 
that  this  rendering  is  proper,  does  it  not  follow  that 
what  is  "poured  out"  is  a  spiritual  influence  coming 
after  the  word  has  been  received  and  accepted  ?  It 
came  upon  the  household  of  Cornelius  after  they  re- 
ceived the  word.  No  evangelical  Christian  whatever 
holds  to  a  conception  so  gross  as  this,  that  the  entire 
Third  Person  in  the  Trinity  was  "  poured  out  upon 


*    On  the  Rock,"  p.  222. 


BAP  I  ISM  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 


237 


the  disciples  or  any  one  else ;  but  what  they  do  main- 
tain is,  that  in  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  there  is 
an  immediate  impartation  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  his 
baptizing  or  purifying  influence,  to  the  soul  of  the 
believer. 

Wonderful  discovery  this — the  bjvptism  of  words  I 
Why,  our  Heavenly  Father  had  been  doing  this  from 
the  time  of  the  first  revelation  to  men.  Strange  that  at 
the  time  the  revelation  was  about  completed  the  frag- 
ment that  remained  should  be  called  a  baptism. 

But  in  Titus  iii,  5,  6,  we  have  the  Holy  Ghost 
"  poured  out  abundantly.^'  The  preposition  dro  is 
not  in  this  text.  The  relative  oh,  "  which,"  must  either 
agree  with  XoDvpobj  "  washing,"  or  with  ni^s'jtiazoz 
dyio'j,  Holy  Ghost ;  for  they  are  both  in  the  neuter 
gender,  while  "  renewing  "  is  in  the  feminine  gender. 
To  construe  the  relative  which "  in  the  text  with 
"  washing,"  will  scarcely  be  admitted  by  these  theorists. 
If,  then,  construed  with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  the  text 
declares  that  it  was  poured  out  on  the  believer  abun- 
dantly. Xow,  they  tell  us,  in  interpreting  this  text, 
that  "  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost  "  is  the  influ- 
ence of  the  word  upon  the  minds  and  consciences  of 
men.  If  so,  how  does  it  come  that  this  relative 
is  not  in  the  feminine  gender,  to  agree  with  renemingf 
It  seems  to  the  writer  that  the  very  grammatical  struc- 
ture is  made  to  teach  that  it  is  not  mediate  agency 
that  comes  in  contact  with  the  soul,  but  the  Spirit 
himself,  and  the  result  is  a  washing  and  renewing. 


238 


ERRORS  OF  CAMVBELLISM. 


With  this  interpretation  fully  agree  other  declara- 
tions of  the  apostle  Paul  concerning  spiritual  baptism. 
As  for  example,  Eph.  iv,  5:  One  Lord,  one  faith, 
one  baptism;"  Rom.  vi,  3,  4:  ^'Know  ye  not  that  so 
many  of  us  as  were  baptized  in  Jesus  Christ,  were 
baptized  into  his  death  ?  Therefore  we  are  buried  with 
him  by  baptism  into  death  :  that  like  as  Christ  was 
raised  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even 
so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life  and  Col.  ii, 
11,12:  "In  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  cir- 
cumcision made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the  body 
of  the  sins  of  the  flesh  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ : 
buried  with  him  in  baptism,  wherein  also  ye  are  risen 
with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God, 
who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead."  Now,  it  is  a 
very  reasonable  rule  of  interpretation  to  hold  that  the 
forms  of  expression  peculiar  to  a  writer  have  the 
same  interpretation  in  all  places,  that  he  has  given  to 
them  in  one  or  a  few  instances.  The  characteristic 
expressions  here  are  "  one  body,"  "one  baptism,"  and 
"  baptism  into  Christ."  The  one  body  is  Christ,  or 
rather  Christ's  spiritual  Church.  The  "  one  baptism  " 
is  by  the  Spirit,  and  "  baptism  into  Christ"  is  spiritual 
baptism.  AVater  baptism  never  baptizes  any  one  "  into 
Christ,"  but  only  into  the  name  of  Christ ;  that  is  into 
a  profession  of  the  name  of  Christ.  Therefore,  these 
facts  exclude  water  baptism  from  all  these  texts,  only  as 
it  is  implied  in  the  antitype,  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit. 

How  do  we  make  this  out?    Paul  defines  the  "  one 


BAPTISM  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST. 


239 


body "  and  the  "  one  baptism/^  in  1  Cor.  xii,  13  : 
"  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body/' 
Apply,  then,  this  definition  of  the  "  one  baptism  to 
the  three  texts  before  given,  and  you  make  spiritual 
baptism  out  of  all  of  them.  Baptism  does  precisely 
the  same  thing  in  Rom.  vi,  3  and  4,  and  Col.  ii,  11, 
12,  that  baptism  by  the  Spirit  is  said  to  do  in  1  Cor. 
xii,  13;  that  is,  it  baptizes  us  into  one  body^^  'Mnto 
Christ.''  Hence  if  water  baptism  does  the  same  thing, 
it  follows  that  there  are  two  baptisms  effecting  the 
same  result ;  but  there  is  but  one  baptism,''  and  that 
baptism  is  by  '^one  Spirit."  The  persistent  tendency 
of  man  to  ritualism  in  religion  is  seen  in  the  deter- 
mination to  read  water  into  texts  wherever  baptism  is 
mentioned,  unless  it  is  specifically  excluded. 

The  forms  of  expression  used  in  Rom.  vi,  3-6,  and 
Col.  ii,  11,  12,  do  not  agree  with  the  idea  of  a  refer- 
ence to  water  baptism.  The  controlling  thought  here 
is  a  death  to  sin,  and  a  life  to  righteousness.  It  is  a 
baptism  info  Christy  into  his  death,  into  death.  Now, 
we  know  that  water  baptism  is  "into  the  name  of 
Christ"  (Acts  xix,  5),  and  we  know,  as  shown  above, 
that  the  baptizing  of  the  Spirit  is  *^into  Christ." 
Baptism  "  into  his  death'^  is  into  the  saving  power 
of  his  death,  and  into  death  is  into  a  death  to  sin 
and  a  life  to  righteousness.  How  preposterous  to 
attribute  such  overwhelming  results  to  mere  ritual 
baptism !  If,  as  the  followers  of  Campbell  claim,  water 
baptism  produces  death  to  sin  in  the  penitent  believer, 


240 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLTSM. 


Avhat  produces  dcatli  to  sin  in  the  penitent  backslider? 
For  he  must  be  buried  by  baptism  into  death  also,  if 
he  "would  live  again  unto  righteousness.  But  note 
that  this  baptism  is  not,  as  immersionists  claim,  in  the 
^'likeness''  of  a  burial,  but  ''in  the  likeness  of  his 
death so  "  our  old  man  is  crucified  with  him,  that 
the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed.'^  ''The  likeness 
of  his  death is  crucifixion.  There  is  still  another  like- 
ness indicated  in  verse  3 :  "  That  like  as  Christ  was 
raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father, 
even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life." 
Now,  the  true  interpretation  of  this  depends  upon  the 
agency  by  which  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead. 
In  chapter  viii,  11,  we  are  told  that  Christ  was  raised 
by  the  Spirit:  "But  if  the  Spirit  of  him  that  raised 
up  Jesus  from  the  dead  dwell  in  you,  he  that  raised 
up  Jesus  from  the  dead  shall  also  quicken  your  mortal 
bodies  by  his  Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you."  So  also 
1  Peter  iii,  18  :  "Being  put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  but 
quickened  by  the  Spirit."  There  is,  then,  a  likeness  as 
to  agency  between  our  spiritual  resurrection,  and  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  from  the  dead.  The  likeness 
of  his  death  is  crucifixion  ;  the  likeness  of  resurrection 
is  spiritual  power. 

A  consideration  of  the  parallel  passage — Col.  ii, 
11,  12 — will  reveal  principles  in  harmony  with  the 
interpretation  just  given.  Here  we  are  told  that  this 
baptism  is  a  circumcision — "  the  circumcision  of 
Christ  " — "  made  without  hands."    This  circumcision 


BAPTISM  OF  THE  HOLY  GHOST.  241 

is  most  certainly  a  spiritual  circumcision ;  for  it  is  not 
physical  in  its  mode — it  is  made  without  hands. 
Then  the  burial  with  Christ  and  the  resurrection  are 
spoken  of.  The  resurrection  is  through  the  faith  of 
the  operation  or  energy  (Ivepyica::)  of  God,  and  here 
his  resurrection  from  the  dead  is  again  grounded  on 
the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  not  only  so,  but 
the  quickening  power  of  the  Spirif  is  spoken  of  in 
the  next  verse  as  the  immediate  effect  of  this  baptism  r 
"  And  you,  being  dead  in  your  sins,  and  the  uncircum- 
cision  of  your  flesh,  hath  he  quickened  together  with 
him/'  That  is,  the  same  power  that  raised  him 
quickened  you  in  baptism.  There  can  be  no  question, 
therefore,  that  the  resurrection  is  a  spiritual  resurrec- 
tion; and  if  so,  the  burial  must  be  spiritual.  The 
burial  can  not  be  physical,  and  the  resurrection  spir- 
itual ;  they  must  be  similar  in  this  respect.  But  again, 
we  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  point  of  compari- 
son is  not  a  likeness  of  burial  and  resurrection  to 
which  a  physical  immersion  and  emersion  is  made  to 
have  some  remote  resemblance,  but  a  likeness  of 
death  and  resurrection.  Id  Col.  ii,  11,  12,  the  put- 
ting off  the  body  the  sins  of  the  flesh,"  that  is  death  ; 
and  "  risen  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,'' 
quickened  together  with  him.  In  Rom.  vi,  5  :  In 
the  likeness  of  his  death,"  "  our  old  man  crucified 
wdth  him  that  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed," 
and  "  like  as  Christ  was  raised  from  the  dead,  even  so 

also  we  should  walk  in  newness  of  life." 

21 


242 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


The  followers  of  A.  Campbell  contend  that  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  a  miracle-working 
gift.  This  is  an  assumption  wholly  gratuitous.  It  is 
for  this  reason,  however,  that  they  seek  to  confine  it 
to  the  apostles  and  to  the  household  of  Cornelius. 
They  point  to  the  fact  that,  in  both  these  instances  of 
Holy  Ghost  baptism,  there  was  a  speaking  with  tongues. 
But  in  1  Cor.  xii,  the  various  gifts  of  the  Spirit 
are  set  forth,  and  these  are  all  summed  up  in  verse  13, 
as  the  result  of  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which 
came  upon  all.  The  assertion  that  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  only  a  miracle-working  ministration,  is 
tantamount  to  the  denial  that  there  is  any  gift  of  the 
Spirit  with  the  Church  to-day ;  for  it  was  in  this 
form  that  it  was  promised  to  the  entire  Church.  "  The 
Holy  Spirit  of  promise/'  the  Comforter,"  "  the  gift 
of  the  Spirit,"  each  and  all  came  in  a  baptism  on  Pen- 
tecost. Hence,  to  deny  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  to 
the  Church  to-day,  is  to  deny  each  and  all  of  these, 
and  is  to  leave  the  Church  comfortless. 


SYNOyyMS  OF  BAPTISM 


243 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

THE  IMMEDIATE  OPERATION  OF  THE  SPIRIT  CON- 
TINUED—SYNONYMS OF  BAPTISM. 

The  words  icash,  cleanse,  purify,  sanctify,  seal, 
and  anoint,  as  used  in  the  Scriptures  as  synonyms  for 
tlie  baptism  of  the  Spirit,  imply  direct  and  immediate 
impression  upon  the  hearts  and  consciences  of  be- 
lievers. In  but  a  Very  few  instances  are  any  of  these 
ascribed,  ev^en  in  a  secondary  and  remote  sense,  to  the 
Avord.  But  we  will  examine  these  supposed  instances, 
lest  it  be  thought  that  there  is  more  in  them  in  favor 
of  this  theory  than  really  is.  John  xv,  3,  is  often 
quoted  as  setting  forth  the  cleansing  power  of  the 
word:  "Now  ye  are  clean,  through  the  word  which 
I  have  spoken  unto  you.'^  It  depends  entirely  upon 
what  is  meant  by  "  the  word  which  I  have  spoken 
unto  you."  It  is  maintained  that  it  refers  to  the  gen- 
eral teaching  of  Christ  going  before.  If  such  were 
the  case,  it  would  be  the  plural  words,  instead  of 
word.  This  "  icord,^^  speaking  them  clean,  will  be 
found  in  ch.  xiii,  10:  "  Jesus  saith  to  him.  He  that  is 
washed  needeth  not  save  to  wash  his  feet,  but  is  clean 
every  whit;  and  ye  are  clean,  but  not  all.''  It  is 
manifest  that  the  Savior  here  simply  speaks  them  clean 
by  an  exercise  of  that  power  he  had  to  speak  sins 


244 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBFAJASM. 


forgiven.  So  by  the  Holy  Ghost  he  speaks  to  humau 
hearts,    Be  thou  clean/' 

John  xvii,  17,  is  also  cited  as  a  proof  of  sanctifi- 
cation  by  means  of  the  truth.  It  was  extensively 
quoted  by  Campbell  in  his  debate  with  Professor 
Rice,  and  Braden  in  his  debate  with  Dr.  Hughey. 

Sanctify  them  through  the  truth ;  thy  word  is  truth." 
Now  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  word  sanctify  in 
tliis  case  means  the  same,  as  applied  to  the  disciples, 
that  it  does  as  applied  to  Christ;  for  the  Savior  says, 
verse  19:  "And  for  their  sakes  I  sanctify  myself, 
that  they  also  might  be  sanctified  through  the  truth." 
The  word  sanctify  therefore  means  consecrate ^  or  set 
apart.  It  can  not  mean  to  cleanse  from  sin,  for  they 
were  already  ''clean,"  ch.  xiii,  10,  and  xv,  3.  And 
besides,  the  Savior  did  not  mean,  even  so  cleanse  / 
myself^'  for  he  had  no  sin  to  be  cleansed  from.  The 
Revised  Version  gives  the  key  to  the  whole  matter 
in  reading  the  text,  "  Sanctify  them  in  the  truth 
that  is,  in  the  use  of  the  truth  for  their  office  as 
teachers;  and  verse  19  may  be  paraphrased  thus: 
"And  for  their  sakes  I  set  myself  apart  as  their 
teacher,  that  they  might  also  be  set  apart  as  teachers 
of  the  truth."  This  is  the  plain  and  obvious  mean- 
ing of  the  prayer.  One  thing,  however,  is  excluded; 
it  can  not  be  a  prayer  for  the  salvation  of  the  apos- 
tles, and  hence  is  misemployed  when  used  in  this 
sense. 

Another  passage  used  by  them  in  the  same  way  is 


SYNONYMS  OF  BAPTISM. 


245 


Kuiii.  i,  16 :  "I  am  not  ashamed  of  the  gu^pel  of 
Christ,  for  it  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation  to 
every  one  that  belie veth."  In  the  first  place,  the  pas- 
sage does  not  affirm  that  the  gospel  is  the  only  power 
of  God  unto  salvation,  and  it  would  be  sufficient 
for  all  purposes  of  argument  to  dismiss  it  with  this 
remark.  In  the  second  place,  what  is  the  meaning  of 
the  term  gospel  here?  These  parties  seem  to  take  it 
for  granted  that  it  means  the  whole  Xew  Testament 
canon.  The  gospel  is  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation 
through  Christ  and  his  gifts  unto  men.  Hence  the 
gospel  was  preached  unto  Abraham,"*  and  preached 
to  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  wilderness. f  It  there- 
fore is  this  simple  truth  that  ^'  God  is  in  Christ  rec- 
onciling the  world  unto  himself,"  and  has  no  water 
baptism  in  it  whatever. 

For  a  similar  purpose,  Eph.  v,  25,  26,  is  cited: 
"  Husbands,  love  your  wives,  even  as  Christ  loved  the 
Church  and  gave  himself  for  it,  that  he  might  sanc- 
tify and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing  of  water  by  the 
word."  In  reply  to  the  argument  attempted  from 
this,  it  is  only  necessary  to  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  those  who  contend  for  the  immediate  influence  of 
the  Spirit  do  not  deny  his  mediate  work.  But  the 
words  iu  pijuazi  may,  with  equal  propriety,  be  trans- 
lated "  in  the  -word  " — that  is,  according  to  the  word. 
What  word?    The  word  of  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  ch. 


*Gal.  iii,  8.    tHeb.  iv,  2. 


246 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


xxxvi,  25-27 :  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water 
upon  you  and  ye  shall  he  clean,  and  Irora  all  y<iur 
filthiness  and  idols  will  I  cleanse  you.  A  new  heart 
also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put 
within  you.  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of 
your  flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  a  heart  of  flesh.  And 
I  will  put  my  Spirit  within  you,  and  cause  you  to 
walk  in  my  statutes,  and  ye  shall  keep  my  judgments 
to  do  them."  Now,  all  other  passages,  where  the  word 
of  truth  is  spoken  of  in  connection  with  cleansing, 
washing,  and  the  like,  can  be  explained  in  the  same 
way.  Xo  supposed  difficulty  for  the  doctrine  of  evan- 
gelical Christians  has  been  evaded.  lu  fact,  all  their 
arguments  proceed  upon  the  assumptions,  already  re- 
ferred to,  that  the  instrumentality  of  the  word  is  de- 
nied. It  is  not.  Simply  the  additional  fact  of  the 
direct  impression  and  immediate  efficacy  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  asserted,  and  this  latter  the  followers  of  A. 
Campbell  deny. 

The  psalmist  David  prays,  after  his  great  sin  (Psa. 
li,  7)  :  Purge  me  with  hyssop,  and  I  shall  be  clean ; 
wash  me,  and  I  shall  be  whiter  than  snow."  And 
again,  in  verse  10:  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  O 
God,  and  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me."  Now,  was 
the  psalmist  praying  for  the  word — for  the  law  of 
(lod — to  be  given  him  to  ''purge  and  wash  him,"  ''to 
create  in  him  a  clean  heart  and  renew  a  right  spirit 
within  him?"  In  his  debate  with  Professor  Kice,  Mr. 
Caiupl)ell  was  wont  to  quote  from  Psa.  xix:  "The  law 


SYNONYMS  OF  BAPTISM. 


247 


of  God  is  perfect,  converting  the  soul/'  David  al- 
ready bad  this  converting  law;  what  more  was  he 
praying  for?  This  law  had  done  its  work,  "for  by  it 
was  the  knowledge  of  sin.'^  It  accused  him  and  con- 
demned him,  and  he  now  felt  he  needed  a  direct  com- 
munication from  the  great  Author  of  the  law,  saying 
to  his  heart :  "  Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee  — "  thou 
art  clean.'' 

Mr.  Campbell  and  his  followers  teach  that  the  nat- 
uralized citizen  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  has  a  right 
to  petition  or  pray.  Now,  in  the  case  of  a  backslider, 
like  David,  a  petition  for  pardon  and  cleansing  is  of- 
fered,— how  is  it  obtained?  Does  God  pardon?  How 
does  the  sinner  know  it?  Does  he  cleanse?  By 
what  agency  does  he  do  it?  If  it  is  all  done  by  the 
word,  it  is  a  decided  waste  of  time,  even  a  presump- 
tion, to  pray  for  that  he  already  has  in  the  Book  of 
Truth. 

The  cleansing  spoken  of  in  Ezekiel  xxxvi,  25-27, 
manifests  the  same  unmistakable  marks  of  divine,  im- 
mediate interposition.  The  promise  to  "sprinkle  clean 
water"  upon  Israel  for  the  purpose  of  cleans- 
ing, can  scarcely  be  taken  in  a  physical  sense.  And 
it  is  certain  that  "  clean  water,''  as  a  symbol,  does  not 
stand  for  the  word.  The  "new  heart"  and  "new 
spirit"  promised  require  an  exercise  of  divine  power, 
and  the  promise  of  tlie  gift  of  his  Spirit  is  to  "cause" 
them  "  to  walk  in  his  statutes  and  keep  his  judgments." 
No  words  could  better  set  forth  the  wide  difference 


248 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


between  GocVs  operation  upon  the  hearts  of  men  and 
the  office  of  the  law  of  God.  The  law  is  in  their 
minds  already.    His  Spirit  causes  them  to  walk  in  it. 

The  same  great  trrth  is  taught  in  Acts  xv,  8,  9: 
"  And  God,  which  knoweth  the  hearts,  bare  them  wit- 
ness, giving  them  the  Holy  Ghost,  even  as  unto  us; 
and  put  no  difference  between  us  and  them,  purifying 
their  hearts  by  faith.''  Let  it  be  noted  that  this  re- 
fers to  the  baptism  of  the  household  of  Cornelius  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that  God  thus  gave  them  the 
Holy  Ghost  to  "  bear  them  witness,"  and  to  purify 
their  hearts,  upon  their  faith  in  Christ.  And  in 
1  Cor.  vi,  11,  we  have,  in  formulated  statement,  the 
presentation  of  the  agency  by  which  this  washing, 
cleansing,  and  sanctification  are  brought  about :  "  And 
such  were  some  of  you,  but  ye  are  washed,  but  ye  are 
sanctified,  but  ye  are  justified,  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the  Spirit  of  our  God.'^  So,  also, 
sanctification  of  the  Spirit  is  spoken  of  as  distinct 
from  the  office  of  the  truth,  in  2  Thess.  ii,  13:  "But 
we  are  bound  to  give  thanks  always  to  God  for  you, 
brethren,  beloved  of  the  Lord,  because  God  hath,  from 
the  beginning,  chosen  you  to  salvation,  through  sanc- 
tification of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the  truth." 

With  an  equally  forceful  import  are  those  pas- 
sages of  divine  truth  which  attribute  sealing  and 
anointing  to  the  Holy  Ghost — 2  Cor.  i,  21,  22 :  "  Now 
he  which  stablisheth  us  with  you  in  Christ  and  hath 
anointed  us,  Is  God;  who  hath  also  sealed  us  and  given 


SYNONYMS  OF  BAPTISM. 


249 


the  earnest  of  the  Spirit  in  our  hearts.^^  Eph.  i,  13 : 
"  In  Avhom  ye  also  trusted,  after  that  ye  heard  the 
Avord  of  the  truth  of  the  gospel  of  your  salvation ;  in 
whom  also,  after  that  ye  believed,  ye  were  sealed  with 
the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise,  which  is  the  earnest  of  our 
inheritance,  until  the  redemption  of  the  purchased 
possession,  unto  the  praise  of  his  glory/^  Eph.  iv,  30 : 
"  And  grieve  not  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God,  whereby  ye 
Avere  sealed  unto  the  day  of  redemption."  1  John  ii, 
20  and  27 :  "  But  ye  have  an  unction  from  the  Holy 
One,  and  ye  know  all  things.  .  .  .  But  the  anoint- 
ing which  ye  have  received  from  him  abideth  in  you, 
and  ye  need  not  that  any  man  teach  you ;  but  as  the 
same  anointing  teacheth  you  all  things,  and  is  truth 
and  is  no  lie,  and  even  as  it  hath  taught  you,  ye  shall 
abide  in  him." 

Now  there  are  several  points  to  be  noted  with  ref- 
erence to  these  passages:  1.  Sealing  is  by  direct  im- 
press on  wax,  or  the  substance  sealed.  2.  As  a  seal  it 
is  a  perpetual  attestation  of  the  instrument  sealed. 
3.  Anointing  is  the  direct  application  of  the  anointing 
oil  to  the  person  anointed.  4.  The  seal  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  in  the  first  two  passages,  is  called  an  ^'  earnest " — 
a  pledge — to  their  acceptance  with  God.  5.  This 
anointing,  sealing,  and  earnest  came  after  the  truth; 
that  is,  the  office  of  the  truth  is  clearly  defined,  and 
having  received  the  truth,  they  afterward  were  sealed 
and  anointed  of  God  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  Holy  Spirit,  in  his  office  of  a  witness,  a  com- 


250 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLTSM. 


forter,  a  helper,  abides  with  the  Church  of  Christ 
throiigli  all  ages  to  the  end  of  time.  These  blessed 
influences  are  set  forth  in  a  quite  extensive  variety 
of  statement  in  the  Scriptures,  statement  totally  in- 
explicable if  the  immediate  impact  of  the  Spirit  is 
denied.  In  the  eighth  chapter  of  Romans  the  apos- 
tle Paul  very  fully  presents  the  office  and  work  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  the  Christian  Church,  emphatically 
setting  forth  the  huJireUing  of  the  Spirit  in  the  hearts 
of  all  who  are  truly  children  of  God,  saying,  in  verses 
14-16  :  "  For  as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
they  are  the  sons  of  God.  For  ye  have  not  received 
the  spirit  of  bondage  again  to  fear;  but  ye  have  re- 
ceived the  Spirit  of  adoption,  whereby  we  cry,  Abba, 
Father.  The  Spirit  itself  beareth  witness  with  our 
spirit  that  we  are  the  children  of  God.''  It  would  seem 
that  this  needs  no  comment,  that  language  could  not 
more  explicitly  teach  a  direct  impression  of  the  Spirit. 
Yet  such  is  the  blinding  influence  of  preconceived 
theories,  that  in  their  interest  these  plain  utterances 
of  inspiration  are  explained  away.  We  are  told  that 
the  Spirit  bears  witness  by  the  word.  Then  the 
Spirit  itself"  is  the  word.  If  so,  by  what  combina- 
tion of  words  in  language  will  we  be  able  to  designate 
the  Holy  Ghost  apart  from  the  word  ?  The  "  earnest 
of  the  Spirit,"  spoken  of  in  2  Cor.  i,  22,  and  v,  5 ; 
Eph.  i,  13,  14,  and  iv,  30,  is  of  like  import. 

This  doctrine  of  the  direct  witness  of  the  Spirit  is 
in  consonance  with  the  soundest  dictates  of  reason. 


SYNONYMS  OF  BAPTISM. 


251 


Sin  is  a  fact  of  personal  experience^  and  felt  in  the 
condemnation  of  conscience.  The  knowledge  of  sin 
comes  from  a  personal  conscionsness  of  its  existence. 
Without  this,  no  amount  of  reasoning  could  convince 
of  sin.  Repentance  is  a  godly  sorrow  for  sin,  a  deep, 
pungent  feeling  of  the  justice  of  divine  displeasure  at 
it.  Now,  what  can  be  the  witness  of  the  removal  of 
guilt  and  condemnation,  and  a  sense  of  restoration 
to  divine  favor,  but  an  impression  made  in  con- 
sciousness? The  same  divine  voice  that  speaks  in 
conscience,  and  says.  Thou  art  guilty,  thou  art  con- 
demned, must  say,  Thou  art  pardoned,  thou  art 
clear.  The  first  is  the  voice  of  God  in  man,  the  sec- 
ond must  likewise  be  his  voice  ;  "  for  who  can  forgive 
sins  but  God  alone?^^ 

But  it  may  be  said.  Conscience  simply  condemns  or 
approves  according  to  the  knowledge  of  the  right,  and 
violation  of  it  or  conformity  to  it;  that  the  individ- 
ual who  does  what  he  believes- to  be  right,  whether  it 
be  right  or  not,  will  have  the  approval  of  conscience. 
This  is  readily  conceded,  and,  as  a  fact,  lies  directly 
against  the  theory  that  makes  the  only  witness  of 
pardon  to  consist  in  a  subjective  process  of  reasoning, 
which  amounts  to  this  alone :  I  have  done  what  I  be- 
lieve to  be  right  in  believing,  repenting,  confessing 
Christ,  and  being  baptized ;  I  may  therefore  conclude 
I  am  pardoned.  But  suppose  this  is  a  mistake ;  what 
then?  I  have  the  approval  of  conscience  to  an  error 
in  judgment,  and  yet  have  no  evidence  of  acceptance 


252 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


w  itli  God.  The  very  fact  that  human  reason  is  liable 
to  err,  is  a  reason  why  God  should  say  to  the  truly 
believing  penitent  heart,  *^Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee," 
and  u<jt  leave  him  to  the  uncertainty  arising  from 
con.seiousness  of  human  fallibility. 

But  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  an  abiding  companion, 
comforter,  helper,  and  teacher,  is  taught  in  numerous 
passages  in  the  Scriptures.  John  vii,  38,  39 :  He 
that  believeth  on  me,  as  the  Scripture  hath  said,  out 
of  his  belly  [^from  within  him, ^  marginal  reading  of  the 
Revised  Version]  shall  flow  rivers  of  living  water. 
But  this  he  spake  of  the  Spirit  which  they  that  be- 
lieve on  him  should  receive  :  for  the  Holy  Ghost  was 
not  yet  given ;  because  that  Jesus  was  not  yet  glori- 
fied." Of  similar  import  are  the  promises  of  the 
ParadetCj  in  John  xiv,  16,  17,  and  26;  xv,  26;  and 
xvi,  7-13,  on  which  extensive  comment  has  already 
been  made.  Rom.  viii,  26:  ''Likewise  the  Spirit 
also  helpeth  our  infirmities,  for  we  know  not  what 
we  should  pray  for  as  we  ought:  but  the  Spirit  itself 
maketh  intercession  for  us  with  groanings  which  can 
not  be  uttered."  2  Cor.  iii,  3 :  "  Forasmuch  as  ye 
are  manifestly  declared  to  be  the  epistle  of  Christ, 
ministered  by  us,  written  not  with  ink,  but  with  the 
Spirit  of  the  living  God;  not  in  tables  of  stone,  but 
in  fleshly  tables  of  the  heart."  1  Cor.  iii,  16:  "  Know 
ye  not  that  ye  are  the  temple  of  God,  and  that  the 
Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  you?"  Also  vi,  19  :  What ! 
know  ye  not  that  your  body  is  the  temple  of  the 


SYNONYMS  OF  BAPTISM, 


253 


Holy  Ghost,  which  is  in  you,  which  ye  have  of  God, 
and  ye  are  not  your  own?'^  Rom.  v,  5:  "And  hope 
maketh  not  ashamed,  because  the  love  of  God  is  shed 
abroad  in  our  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is 
given  unto  us." 

These  are  some  of  the  passages  selected  out  of 
many  of  a  similar  import,  to  be  found  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, setting  forth  the  positive  presence  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  in  the  hearts  of  Christians  as  a  helper,  com- 
forter, teacher.  No  amount  of  exegetical  manipula- 
tion can  break  their  force  in  this  direction. 

There  are  other  passages  that  speak  of  "  access  by 
the  Spirit,"  Eph.  ii,  18;  "Habitation  of  God  through 
the  Spirit,"  Eph.  ii,  22 ;  "  Strengthened  with  might 
by  the  Spirit  in  the  inner  man,"  Eph.  iii,  16; 
"  Grieving  the  Spirit,"  Eph.  iv.  30 ;  "  Filled  with  the 
Spirit,"  Eph.  V,  18;  "Supply  of  the  Spirit,"  Phil, 
i,  19;  "Fellowship  of  the  Spirit,"  Phil,  ii,  1; 
"  Quench  not  the  Spirit,"  1  Thess.  v,  19 ;  "Made  par- 
takers of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  Heb.  vi,  4 ;  "  Despite  to 
the  Spirit  of  grace,"  Heb.  x,  26 ;  "  Praying  in  the 
Holy  Ghost,"  Jude  20.  There  is  the  actual  embarrass- 
ment of  riches  on  this  great  and  blessed  truth  in  the 
Scriptures.  It  is  with  difficulty  that  the  writer  is 
able  to  select,  out  of  the  many  passages  teaching,  as 
shown  above  by  a  great  diversity  of  expression,  this 
truth,  to  set  forth  the  fact  of  the  immediate  presence 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  with  the  child  of  God. 

A  few  have  been  selected  from  the  smaller  epis- 


254 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


ties  to  give  the  reader  an  idea  of  how  ample  the 
proof  of  this  doctrine  in  the  Book  of  divine  in- 
spiration. In  fact,  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the 
one  great  gift  through  which  all  other  good  is  to  come 
to  us.  In  Luke  xi,  13,  the  Master  says:  If  ye  then, 
being  evil,  know  how  to  give  good  gifts  unto  your 
children  ;  how  much  more  shall  your  heavenly  Father 
give  the  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  ask  him !"  Here 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  given  in  answer  to  prayer.  Can 
this  mean  the  word  of  truth  ?  If  not,  what  does  it 
mean?  Why  the  Holy  Spirit  first?  Because  that 
implies  the  gift  of  pardon,  regeneration,  adoption, 
comfort,  help, — all  the  blessings  that  belong  to  the 
children  of  God. 

In  closing  up  the  discussion  upon  this  theme,  we 
note  some  objections  that  are  fatal  to  the  doctrine  that 
the  Spirit  only  operates  through  the  word,  as  Mr. 
Campbell  says:*  "As  all  the  influence  which  my 
spirit  has  exerted  upon  other  spirits,  at  home  or 
abroad,  has  been  the  stipulated  signs  of  ideas,  of  spir- 
itual operations  by  my  written  or  spoken  word ;  so 
believe  I  that  all  the  influence  of  God's  good  Spirit, 
now  felt  in  the  way  of  conviction  or  co)isoIaflon,  in  the 
four  quarters  of  the  globe,  is  by  the  Word  written, 
read,  and  heard,  which  is  called  the  living  oracles." 
The  italics  are  my  own,  to  call  the  reader's  attention 
to  how  comprehensive  the  statement.    It  could  be 


*  "  Millennial  Harbinger,"  Vol.  VI,  p.  35G. 


SYNONYMS  OF  BAPTISM. 


255 


duplicated  from  a  number  of  their  most  able  doc- 
trinal exponents. 

If  this  is  true  doctrine,  it  follows  that  prayer  for 
spiritual  blessings  is  useless.  If  God  does  not  impress 
himself  upon  human  hearts  aside  from  the  word  of 
truth,  and  in  addition  to  it,  then  the  only  comfort  the 
Christian  can  get  is  by  meditation  on  this  word  and 
a  subjective  feeling  of  satisfaction  or  peace  wrought 
within  himself  by  his  cogitations.  And  a  prayer  for 
the  conversion  of  sinners  would  be  a  sinful  Avaste  of 
time,  inasmuch  as  it  would  be  mere  idle  asking  of  God 
to  do  what  he  has  commanded  the  Christian  to  do  by 
the  use  of  the  word,  and  which  can  only  be  done  by 
bringing  its  truths  home  to  human  judgments,  or 
getting  those  who  know  the  truth  to  reflect  on  it. 

Again,  from  the  stand-point  of  this  doctrine  there 
is  no  knowledge  of  forgiveness  of  sins;  there  may  be 
belief  of  forgiveness,  but  this  is  founded  on  fallible 
reasoning,  predicated  on  uncertain  premises.  For  the 
advocates  of  this  doctrine  will  scarcely  assert  in  the 
face  of  nine-tenths  of  the  Christian  world  who  think 
differently,  that  they  know  they  are  right  as  to  the 
conditions  of  pardon;  nor  can  they  claim  that  they  are 
infallibly  certain  they  have  completely  fulfilled  all 
the  conditions.  No  deductions  can  be  more  certain 
than  the  premises  upon  which  they  are  founded.  Then, 
if  there  is  uncertainty  in  the  premises,  and  uncertainty 
in  their  process  of  fulfillment,  there  is  a  cumulative 
uncertainty  in  the  conclusion.    No  consistent  follower 


256 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


of  A.  Campbell  can  say,  I  know  that  Jesus  bath  power 
on  earth  to  forgive  sins.  He  may  say,  "  1  think  so,  I 
believe  so."  Nor  can  he  say,  "  Abba  Father,"  for 
the  Spirit  himself  does  not  bear  witness  with  him. 
He  can  say,  ^ly  fallible  interpretation  of  the  Word 
leads  me  to  believe  that  I  have  obeyed  the  gospel,  and 
because  I  have  done  so,  I  may  believe  I  am  accepted 
of  him. 

But  then,  as  shown  before,  if  he  become  a  back- 
slider, and  repents,  he  is  absolutely  without  evidence 
of  his  reinstatement  to  divine  favor,  if  there  is  no  wit- 
nessing spirit;  for  he  can  not  go  back  to  his  baptism, 
which  he  claimed  was  for  the  remission  of  his  past 
sins,  for  the  sins  he  now  seeks  remission  for  are  sub- 
sequent sins.  He  may  pray;  but  praying  will  bring 
no  sense  of  reconciliation,  save  and  except  such  as  he 
may  predicate  simply  on  the  fact  that  he  prayed  more 
or  less  earnestly. 

It  is  truly  a  doctrine  beset  with  difficulties  many 
and  profound,  and  were  it  not  for  the  theory  of  bap- 
tismal remission  or  justification,  which  anchors  the 
scheme  to  these  fatal  rocks,  it  is  to  be  believed  that 
the  maturer  thought  of  broader  scholarship  would 
ultimately  drift  these  people  over  into  the  wide  ocean 
of  an  all-pervading,  gracious  spiritual  inHuence,  and 
put  them  into  fraternal  harmony  with  the  great  l)odies 
of  Protestantism  in  one  fcllowshij)  of  the  Spirit. 


CAMPBELLITE  OBJECTIONS  TO  METHODISM.  257 


CHAPTER  XX. 

SUNDRY  OBJECTIONS  OF  CAMPBELUTE  TEACHERS 
TO  METHODIST  DOCTRINES. 

It  is  customary  with  the  exponents  of  this  system 
of  faith  to  formulate  a  general  proposition  against 
both  the  polity  and  doctrines  of  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  and  call  upon  our  ministry  to  defend  them 
in  discussion.  The  writer,  on  two  occasions,  has  been 
required  to  respond  to  the  following  proposition ; 
namely,  "  The  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  teaches 
doctrines,  and  enjoins  usages  that  are  contrary  to  the 
Word  of  God.'^  This  gives  them  opportunity  to  make 
a  general  attack  on  the  doctrines  and  economy  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and  at  the  same  time 
present  the  supposed  simplicity  and  scripturalness  of 
the  creed  devised  and  promulgated  by  Alexander 
Campbell. 

When  it  is  remembered  by  the  reader  that  this  so- 
called  reformation  started  out  with  the  laudable  pur- 
pose of  bringing  about  Christian  unity  among  the 
various  denominations  of  Christians,  and  then  the  fact 
is  taken  into  consideration  that  it  is  a  very  de- 
nominational Ishmael  among  the  Churches,  waging  a 
perpetual  war  of  denunciation  and  proselytism  against 
I  22 


258 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


them,  it  is  a  sad  comment  upon  the  inability  of  our 
luimanity,  ordinarily,  to  take  the  proper  gauge  of  its 
own  motives,  impulses,  and  principles. 

It  is  doubtful  if  there  is  to  be  found  among  the 
denominations  of  Protestantism  one  more  imperious 
in  its  claims,  narrower  in  its  creed,  and  more  unchar- 
itable toward  the  honest  principles  of  others,  than 
this  one  that  claims  to  offer  to  the  Christian  world 
a  basis  upon  which  all  can  unite. 

But  we  will  deal  more  fully  with  this  subject  when 
we  oome  to  treat  of  the  distinctive  creed  and  polity  of 
Campbellism.  At  present  attention  will  be  given  to 
their  assault  on  Methodism — an  assault  that  is  made 
wherever  their  ministers  seek  to  make  converts  to 
their  faith.  It  is  always  with  them  a  matter  of  great 
rejoicing  when  they  succeed  in  winning  a  convert 
from  some  one  of  the  sects,"  as  they  are  wont  to 
style  the  other  Christian  bodies.  The  first  point  of 
attack  is  usually  the  denominational  name — Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  The  assumption  is,  that  to  take 
any  other  name  than  that  of  Christum  Church,  is  to 
violate  a  divine  injunction,  and  build  up  a  division 
and  schism  in  the  body  of  Christ.  It  is  usually  main- 
tained by  them  that  Christian  Church  is  a  name  of 
divine  appointment  and  sanction.  In  support  of  these 
assumptions,  the  following  Scriptures  are  uniformily 
cited:  Isa.  Ixii,  2:  "Thou  shalt  be  called  by  a  new 
name,  which  the  mouth  of  the  Lord  shall  name." 
Then,  Acts  xi,  2G  :  "  The  disciples  were  called  Chris- 


CAMPBELLITE  OBJECTIONS  TO  METHODISM.  259 


tiaiis  first  at  Antiocb.'^  Acts  xxvi,  28  :  "  Almost  thou 
persnadest  me  to  be  a  Cbristian/^  1  Peter  iv,  16 : 
"  Yet  if  auy  man  suffer  as  a  Cbristian,  let  bira  be 
not  ashamed."  James  ii,  7  :  Do  not  they  blaspheme 
that  worthy  name  by  the  which  ye  are  called?''  Eph. 
iii,  14:  "Of  whom  the  whole  family  in  heaven  and 
earth  is  named/'  Rev.  ii,  13:  I  know  thy  works, 
and  that  thou  boldest  fast  my  name."  It  is  held  also 
that  the  taking  of  distinctive  denominational  names 
is  condemned  in  1  Cor.  i,  where  the  apostle  Paul  cen- 
sures his  brethren  of  the  Corinthian  Church  for  say- 
ing, "  I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of  ApoUos,  and  I  of  Ce- 
phas, and  I  of  Christ."  These  quotations  make  up 
the  entire  body  of  Scriptural  proof  that  is  offered  on^ 
this  point. 

In  the  determination  of  a  question  in  dispute,  it 
always  helps  to  get  a  clear  idea  of  the  point  at  issue, 
and  what  is  claimed  by  the  disputants.  Let  it  be  un- 
derstood here  that  it  is  not  a  question  as  to  what  the 
individual  followers  of  Christ  should  be  called,  for  all 
agree  that  they  should  be  called  Christians ;  not  per- 
haps as  a  name  specifically  enjoined  by  divine  inspira- 
tion, but  as  an  appropriate  descriptive  appellation. 
Hence  Baptists,  Presbyterians,  Congregationalists, 
Methodists,  and  all  other  denominations  call  them- 
selves Christians,  and  it  is  only  when  they  wish  to 
discriminate  between  their  several  beliefs  that  thov 
use  the  term  Baptist,  Methodist,  and  the  like.  Every 
citizen  within  the  United  States  may  be  called  a  citi- 


260 


ERIIORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


zen  of  the  same.  And  yet  there  are  tiaies  when  his 
State  citizenship  is  required  properly  to  designate  liiiu. 
It  is  not  dishonoring  the  name  of  American  citizen 
to  say  that  he  is  a  Peunsylvanian,  a  Virginian,  an 
Ohioan.  So  a  Baptist  or  a  Methodist,  in  avowing  his 
distinctive  denominational  relationship,  does  not  dis- 
avow his  relationship  to  Christ  or  the  name  Christian. 
Those  who  take  the  name  Christian  as  their  distinctive 
denominational  name,  and  refuse  to  be  discriminated 
by  their  peculiar  characteristics  or  otherwise,  display 
an  arrogance  toward  other  Christians  that  should  not 
be  tolerated.  It  is  this  exclusiveness  that  makes 
division  and  schism.  The  Methodist  can  style  the 
Presbyterian  or  Baptist  or  Congregationalist  his  Chris- 
tian brother;  but  the  followers  of  Alexander  Camp- 
bell can  not  consistently  do  so.  Therefore,  the  idea 
that  Christians  who  are  of  Methodist  belief,  and 
Christians  who  are  of  Baptist  belief,  in  taking  these 
denominational  appellations  properly  to  distinguish 
themselves,  ignore  the  name  of  Christ,  is  a  total  mis- 
aj^prehension  of  the  real  facts  in  the  case. 

For  an  individual  to  have  said,  I  am  of  the 
Church  of  Ephesus,  or  of  the  Church  of  Smyrna,  or 
of  the  Church  of  Pergamos,"  would  not  have  been  to 
deny  the  name  of  Christ  or  Christian ;  for  these  local 
appellation^  were  necessary  as  designations,  but  no 
more  so  than  is  Baptist,  Lutlferan,  Presbyt<?rian, 
Methodist,  to-day. 

But  the  question  is  not.  What  shall  the  individual 


CAMPBELLITE  OBJECTIONS  TO  METHODISM.  261 


followers  of  Christ  call  themselves? — for  they  all  call 
themselves  Christians — but,  AVhat  shall  the  Church  in 
its  organic  capacity  call  itself?  The  followers  of 
Campbell  say  Christian  Churchy  and  no  other  denom- 
inational designation,  for  this  is  a  divinely  ordained 
name.  In  the  first  place,  this  may  be  met  with  a 
square  contradiction.  The  name  Christian  Church 
has  no  existence  in  the  Scriptures.  The  individual 
followers  of  Christ  were  called  Christians,  probably  at 
first  as  a  nickname;  but  certainly  not  objectionable 
to  one  who  had  espoused  the  cause  of  Christ ;  but  the 
Church,  as  an  organization,  was  not  called  the  Chris- 
tian Church ;  and  for  any  denomination  of  professing 
Christians  to  make  use  of  this  false  assumption  to  ar- 
rogate to  themselves  the  exclusive  name  of  Christian 
Church,  and  therefore  demand  to  be  called  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  is  something  that  proper  self-respect  in 
other  Christians  requires  that  they  should  promptly 
resent. 

The  Church  as  a  divine  institution  in  its  univer- 
sality— that  is,  the  body  of  those  whose  "  names  are 
written  in  heaven  — has  a  divine  name  uniformly 
given  to  it  in  the  Scriptures,  and  that  is  ^'  the  Church 
of  God.^'  The  term  Church  of  Christ  does  not  even 
once  occur  in  the  Scriptures — "  Churches  of  Christ 
in  one  instance  Rom.  xvi,  16.  There  is  a  significance 
in  this  fact.  The  Church  existed  before  the  Son  of 
God  became  the  Christ,  and  therefore  its  generic  name, 
which  belonged  to  it  in  all  the  past  ages,  was  per- 


262 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


potuated  with  it,  in  order  that  its  unity  might  hp 
maintained. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  Is  not  Christian  Church  an 
appropriate  appellation?  Most  certainly,  as  an  ap])el- 
lation  designating  the  Church  in  its  catholicity  under 
the  Christian  dispensation,  it  is  appropriate.  Still  it 
is  uot  a  divinely  appointed  name ;  and  when  this  as- 
sertion is  made,  as  it  often  is  by  these  teachers,  there 
is  not  one  particle  of  Scripture  warrant  for  it.  Yet 
it  is  uncharitable  and  arrogant  for  any  denomina- 
tion distinctively  to  style  itself  the  Christian  Church, 
as  though  other  denominations  were  not  Christian  in 
their  faith  and  doctrines. 

Having  thus  cleared  away  the  false  assumptions 
underlying  their  arguments,  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
passages  of  Scripture  they  are  wont  to  cite  are  in  no 
sense  relevant,  and  need  but  little  further  elucidation. 
Isa.  Ixii,  2,  does  not  refer  either  to  the  name  Christian 
or  Christian  Church,  and  only  such  as  have  a  precon- 
ceived theory  to  maintain  would  attempt  to  broach 
such  an  opinion.  In  verse  4  of  this  chapter,  we  have 
both  the  old  name  and  the  new  name  given  in  the 
prophetic  symbolism :  Thou  shalt  no  more  be  termed 
Forsaken;  neither  shall  thy  land  any  more  be  termed 
Desolate ;  but  thou  shalt  be  called  Hephzibah,  and 
thy  land  Beulah :  for  the  Lord  delighteth  in  thee,  and 
thy  land  shall  be  married."  Eph.  ii,  14,  15:  ''For 
this  cause  I  bow  my  knees  unto  the  Fatiier  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  of  wlioin  the   whole  family  in 


CAMPBELLITE  OBJECTIONS  TO  METHODISM.  263 


heaven  and  earth  is  named/^  It  will  suffice  to  ask, 
Does  this  refer  to  the  name  Christian  Church  ?  Is 
there  here  even  a  remote  allusion  to  this  name  as  an 
appellation  of  the  Church?  If  it  were  conceded  that 
reference  here  is  had  to  the  term  Christian  as  a  per- 
sonal designation  of  the  individual  followers  of  Christ, 
that  would  in  no  sense  prove  that  the  Church  of  God 
should  be  called  by  no  other  name  than  Christian 
Church,  and  certainly  would  give  no  warrant  for  the 
assumption  of  the  name  the  Christian  Church  by  any 
one  small  fraction  of  the  body  of  Christ.  The  fact  is, 
the  expression  "  of  whom  the  whole  family  in  heaven 
and  earth  is  named,^'  refers  to  the  Father.  Many  ex- 
cellent ancient  MSS.  and  versions  omit  the  words  "  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ in  verse  14.  But  the  terms 
Father  and  family  have  a  mutual  relation  to  each  other; 
they  are  correlative  terms,  and  should  be  so  construed 
in  the  interpretation  of  the  text.  Saints  in  heaven  and 
saints  on  earth  might  properly  be  called  Christians;  but 
would  Christian  be  a  proper  designation  of  the  angels 
of  God  ?  The  term  Christ  is  an  official  appellation,  and 
belongs  to  him  as  our  anointed  prophet,  priest,  and  king. 
The  name  referred  to  in  the  text  is  sons  of  God.'^ 
1  John  iii,  1  :  "  Behold,  what  manner  of  love  the 
Father  hath  bestowed  upon  us,  that  we  should  be  called 
the  sons  of  God.''  So  also  Gal.  iv,  6,  7  :  "  And  be- 
cause ye  are  sons,  God  hath  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his 
Son  into  your  hearts,  crying,  Abba,  Father.  Where- 


264 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


fore  thou  art  no  more  a  servant,  but  a  son ;  aud  if  a 
son,  then  an  heir  of  God  through  Christ.'^ 

Thus  we  think  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  in 
having  the  modesty,  and  also  the  Christian  charity,  to 
take  a  distinctive  denominational  appellation  among  the 
organizations  that  compose  the  Church  of  God,  in  so  do- 
ing neither  yields  up  their  right  to  be  called  Christians, 
nor  violates  any  mandate  of  the  Scriptures ;  while,  on 
the  contrary,  those  who  arrogate  to  themselves  that 
name  alone,  put  themselves  in  a  place  where  other 
Christians  are  compelled  to  give  them  a  distinctive 
appellation  which  may  not  be  acceptable  to  them. 
It  is  certainly  in  the  worst  kind  of  taste  for  the  fol- 
lowers of  A.  Campbell,  or  any  other  denomination,  to 
style  themselves  the  Christian  Church.  The  writer, 
out  of  respect  for  his  own  personal  rights,  and  out  of 
courtesy  to  other  Christian  denominations,  begs  to 
be  excused. 

Following  this,  there  are  several  objections  that 
they  usually  make  to  our  book  of  Discipline  and 
Articles  of  Religion,  to  which  we  will  reply  when  the 
subject  of  Discipline  and  Creeds  is  considered — the 
objections  not  being  made  to  the  doctrines  as  false,  but 
only  to  the  form  of  their  promulgation,  they  claiming 
that  they  are  not  enjoined  in  the  Scriptures  as  mat- 
ters of  faith. 

But  Article  VIII  of  our  Articles  of  Religion  is 
often  by  them  held  up  as  teaching  a  doctrine  con- 


CAMPBELLITE  OBJECTIONS  TO  METHODISM.  265 


trary  to  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures.  The  article 
reads :  The  condition  of  man,  after  the  fall  of  Adam 
is  such  that  he  can  not  turn  and  prepare  himself,  by 
his  own  natural  strength  and  works,  to  faith,  and  call- 
ing upon  God ;  wherefore  we  have  no  power  to  do 
good  works,  pleasant  and  acceptable  to  God,  without 
the  grace  of  God  by  Christ  preventing  us,  that  we 
may  have  a  good  will.'' 

The  reason  for  their  stout  objection  to  this  article 
is  the  fact  that  it  teaches  the  immediate  influence  of 
the  Divine  Spirit  and  grace  upon  human  hearts,  and, 
as  shown  in  former  chapters,  that  they  can  not  admit, 
without  upsetting  the  very  foundation-stones  of  Camp- 
bellism,  baptism  as  a  condition  to  justification,  and  its 
witness  to  the  fact  of  justification;  for  if  the  Divine 
Spirit  helps  the  sinner,  why  may  he  not  witness  to 
the  believer?  But  in  this  respect  the  followers  of  A. 
Campbell  are  more  consistent,  but  less  orthodox,  than 
was  their  great  teacher.  He  taught  inherent  de- 
pravity and  human  sinful  helplessness.  After  speak- 
ing of  Adam's  transgression  and  its  effects  upon  his 
race,  he  says :  *  "  There  is  therefore  a  sin  of  our  na- 
ture, as  well  as  personal  transgression.  Some  inap- 
positely  call  the  sin  of  our  nature  our  '  original  sin,' 
as  if  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  personal  offense  of  all 
his  children.  True,  indeed,  it  is ;  our  nature  was  cor- 
rupted by  the  fall  of  Adam  before  it  was  transmitted 


*"  Christian  System,"  p.  28. 

23 


26G 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLTSM. 


to  us,  aad  hence  that  hereditary  imbecility  to  do  good, 
and  that  proneness  to  do  evil,  so  universally  apparent 
in  all  human  beings.  Let  no  man  open  his  mouth 
against  the  transmission  of  moral  distemper  until  he 
satisfactorily  explain  the  fact  that  the  special  charac- 
teristic vices  of  parents  appear  in  their  children,  as 
much  as  the  color  of  their  skin,  their  hair,  or  the  con- 
tour of  their  faces.  A  disease  in  the  moral  constitu- 
tion of  man  is  as  clearly  transmissible  as  any  physical 
taint,  if  there  be  any  truth  in  history,  biography,  or 
human  observation.'^ 

Here  is  language  clearly  asserting  inherited  de- 
pravity,— "  hereditary  imbecility  to  do  good,  and 
proneness  to  do  evil.''  Xow,  if  such  be  the  condition 
of  the  human  heart,  no  mere  appeal  to  the  intellect 
will  meet  the  demands  of  the  case ;  ^'  hereditary  imbe- 
cility "  can  only  be  overcome  by  the  immediate  influ- 
ence of'  the  Divine  Spirit.  With  this  agrees  the 
teaching  of  the  Scriptures  in  the  use  of  such  terms  as 
express  the  utter  helplessness  of  a  race  of  sinners 
without  immediate  divine  assistance, — such  as  "dead 
in  trespasses  and  in  sins *  the  whole  head  sick," 
the  whole  heart  faint ;"  t  "  enchained  to  the  putre- 
fying body  of  sin."  % 

In  invciirhinor  ao^ainst  the  doctrine  of  this  Article  of 
Religion,  it  is  customary  for  these  teachers  to  hold  it  up 
IS  teaching  total  depravity.    The  words  total  depravity 


^  Eph.  ii,  1.    t  Isa.  i,  5.    X  Rom.  vii.  24. 


CAMPBELLITE  OBJECTIONS  TO  METHODISM.  267 


have  no  existence  in  any  Article  of  Religion  of  the  Meth- 
odist Episcopal  Church;  and  while  in  orthodox  theology 
they  have  a  very  definite  import,  yet  there  is  nothing  in 
our  Articles  of  Religion  requiring  our  use  of  them,  or  a 
defense  of  them  as  a  proper  theological  technic.  The 
term,  however,  as  defined  by  those  that  use  it,  simply 
means  "hereditary  imbecility  to  do  good,"  a  total 
bent  and  inclination  to  sin,  so  that  the  sinner,  left  to 
himself,  would  never  turn  to  seek  after  righteousness. 
But  man  has  not  been  left  to  himself;  but  provisions, 
gracious  and  ample,  have  been  made  for  the  salvation 
of  the  entire  race,  and  the  only  question  of  difference 
between  the  followers  of  A.  Campbell  and  Methodists 
is  this :  What  constitutes  these  provisions  ?  They 
say  they  are  the  atonement  and  the  word  alone. 
Methodists  say,  in  addition  to  these  is  a  manifestation 
of  the  Spirit,  given  to  every  man  to  profit  withal."^ 
They  say  because  of  man's  "  hereditary  imbecility  to 
good,  and  proneness  to  evil,''  he  needs  the  help  of 
God.  Mr.  Braden  f  says  :  "  This  teaches  the  doctrine 
of  election  and  reprobation."  Let  us  see.  Mr.  Bra- 
den believes  that  the  word  of  divine  truth  is  the  di- 
vine gracious  provision  for  the  salvation  of  men. 
If  tliis  alone,  then  only  those  who  have  it  are  elected 
to  the  gracious  possibility  of  salvation.  In  other 
words,  God  has  passed  by  to  this  date  the  greater 
part  of  the  human  race,  making  no  provision  what- 


*1  Cor.  xii,  7.    t    Hiighey  and  Braden  Debate,"  p.  522. 


268 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISyr. 


ever  for  thera ;  and  if  auy  of  the  heathen  are  saved, 
they  are  saved  through  a  morality  that  is  wholly 
their  own.  The  Methodist  Church  believes  that  God 
has  made  it  possible  for  every  child  of  man  to  be 
saved  who  will  use  the  grace  given,  while  Campbell- 
ism  must  either  deny  this,  or  else  save  some  outside 
of  any  manifestation  of  grace  whatever.  The  simple 
truth  is,  the  article  asserts  man's  natural  inability  to  a 
righteousness  that  will  meet  the  divine  requirements, 
and  also  indicates  that  a  gracious  ability  is  given  unto 
him,  that  his  salvation  may  be  of  grace,  and  not  of 
works;"  of  God,  and  not  of  man.  Man's  work  is  sim- 
ply the  employment  of  the  grace  supplied. 

That  part  of  Article  II  of  the  Articles  c»f  Re- 
ligion which  says  Christ  was  crucified,  dead,  aud 
buried,  to  reconcile  his  Father  to  us,"  is  also  very  ve- 
hemently assailed  by  them.  The  animus  of  this  antag- 
onism is  found  in  the  fact  that  it  is  thought  that  the 
doctrine  of  a  divine  side  to  the  work  of  reconciliation 
leaves  open  a  way  of  prayer  to  the  sinner,  and  a  wit- 
nessing spirit  to  the  believer.  Much  of  their  oppo- 
sition is  either  founded  upon  a  misapprehension  of  the 
import  of  the  language  here  used,  or  is  a  mere  con- 
tention about  words.  The  article  only  asserts  that 
Christ  suffered  and  died  to  reconcile  the  administra- 
tion of  divine  justice  to  the  pardon  of  our  sin  ;  that 
is,  to  reconcile  divine  justice  with  divine  mercy. 
Surely  it  will  not  be  contended  that  Christ  did  not 
die  to    make  it  possible  for  God  to  be  just,  and  the 


CAMPBELLITE  OBJECTIONS  TO  METHODISM.  269 


jiistlfier  of  sinners/'*  If  it  is  contended  that  this 
propitiation  of  divine  justice  is  in  no  sense  a  recon- 
ciliation of  God  to  the  sinner,  then  this  is  a  question 
to  be  decided  by  an  appeal  to  the  Word  of  God. 
Though  it  is^with  some  difficulty  we  get  at  the  exact 
meaning  of  these  persons,  yet  their  methods  of  rea- 
soning lead  to  the  conclusion  that  they  mean  to  deny 
in  toto  the  application  of  the  term  reconciliation  in  the 
plan  of  redemption  to  God ;  that  is,  God  was  in  no 
sense  reconciled  to  man.  He  never  was  unrecon- 
ciled. What  does  the  word  reconcile  mean?  Web- 
ster defines  it  "  to  bring  together,  to  unite.''  There 
are  two  parties  in  every  reconciliation,  and  they  are 
only  reconciled  when  they  are  brought  into  harmony. 
Can  God  be  in  a  state  of  reconciliation  with  man  in 
sin  and  willful  disobedience?  Can  it  be  said  that 
God  is  well  pleased  with  him?  If  not,  then  he  needs 
to  be  reconciled  to  him  by  man's  repentance  and  faith. 
The  Scriptures  teach  that  the  Avrath  of  God  abides  on 
the  unbeliever.  John  iii,  36:  He  that  believeth  on 
the  Son  hath  everlasting  life :  and  he  that  believeth 
not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life ;  but  the  wrath  of  God 
abideth  on  him."  Can  God  be  said  to  be  reconciled  to 
that  individual  upon  whom  his  lor'ath  abides  f  But 
this  shall  be  treated  of  more  fully  when  we  consider 
the  individual  sinner's  reconciliation  to  God. 

The  reconciliation  in  the  article  especially  spoken  of, 


*  Rom.  iii,  20. 


270 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM, 


is  the  reconciliation  of  the  Father  to  man's  jnstification 
in  the  sacrificial  death  of  Clirist.  The  fundamental  idea 
contained  in  the  word  sacrijice  is  the  placating  of  divine 
justice,  and  this  placating  is  called  in  the  Scriptures 
^'making  reconciliation  for  ini(piity."  Daniel  ix,  24: 
"  Seventy  weeks  are  determined  upon  thy  holy  city  to 
finish  the  transgression,  and  to  make  reconciliation  for 
hiiquitij.^^  This,  without  question,  refers  to  the  sac- 
rificial work  of  Christ,  and  that  most  certainly  was 
made  to  divine  justice.  What,  then,  wa«  reconciled 
on  Calvary?  Divine  justice.  The  Hebrew  word  for 
reconcile  is  kaphar — to  cover,  to  make  atonenient. 
It  would  be  raarvelously  absurd  to  maintain  that  man 
is  the  party  that  is  to  be  reconciled  here. 

The  word  reconcile  and  its  derivatives  occur  in 
the  New  Testament  twelve  times,  where  it  signifies 
the  restoration  of  man  again  to  favor  with  God. 
These  are  translations  of  fijur  different  Greek  words, 
xaza/ldacrcOj  aTzoxaza/jAzTco,  xaTa/layrjj  DAaxoam.  The 
first  three  indicate  or  signify  the  change  of  relations 
brought  about  between  God  and  the  sinner.  Our 
reconciliation  is  not  spoken  of  until  it  is  a  reconcilia- 
tion in  fact,  by  bringing  the  alicnatccl  parties  to- 
gether. The  first  employment  of  the  term  reconcile 
{xaza)jAaao))  in  reference  to  the  relation  in  grace  be- 
tween God  and  man,  is  in  Rom.  v,  10:  "For  if, 
when  we  were  enemies,  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by 
the  death  of  his  Son  ;  much  more,  being  reconciled, 
we  shall  be  saved  by  his  life."     X<»\v,  what  was  rec- 


CAMPBELLITE  OBJECTIONS  TO  METHODISM.  271 


onciled  by  the  death  of  Christ?  Most  certainly  di- 
vine justice;  not  man,  for  this  reconciliation  took 
place  when  "  we  were  enemies."  Reconciliation  is 
the  divine  side  of  the  work  of  Christ,  salvation  is 
our  side ;  that  is,  he  reconciles  God  and  saves  us. 
In  2  Cor.  V,  18,  19  :  "And  all  things  are  of  God, 
who  hath  reconciled  us  to  himself  by  Jesus  Christ, 
and  hath  given  us  the  ministry  of  reconciliation  ;  to  wit, 
that  God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto 
himself,  not  imputing  their  trespasses  unto  them,  and 
hath  committed  unto  us  the  word  of  reconciliation." 
Note  that  this  reconciliation  "  hath  "  been  completed 
through  Jesus  Christ.  It  therefore  can  not  be  the 
reconciliation  of  the  sinner  to  God.  Verse  19  de- 
fines this  reconciliation  ;  to  wit,  "  that  God  was  in 
Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself."  When  was 
this  done?  In  the  incarnation.  Notice  the  past 
tense  "  was."  If  the  reconciliation  were  that  of  man, 
then  it  would  be  in  the  present  tense.  The  past  tense 
refers  to  the  atoning  sacrifice  of  Christ.  The  recon- 
ciliation was  in  the  past;  the  "ministry"  of  divine 
"  reconciliation  "  is  future.  Of  like  import  are  Eph. 
ii,  16 :  "And  that  he  might  reconcile  both  unto  God 
in  one  body  by  the  cross,  having  slain  the  enmity 
thereby;"  and  Col.  i,  20,  21:  "And,  having  made 
peace  through  the  blood  of  the  cross,  by  him  to  rec- 
oncile all  things  unto  himself;  by  him,  I  say,  whether 
they  be  things  in  earth,  or  things  in  heaven.  And 
you,  that  were  sometime  alienated  and  enemies  in 


272 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


your  mind  by  wicked  works,  yet  now  hath  he  recon- 
ciled in  the  body  of  his  flesh  through  death." 

Now,  in  both  of  these  quotations  the  reconciliation 
is  by  the  cross,  and  is  in  the  past  tense.  In  Eph.  ii, 
16,  it  is  in  the  aorist  subjunctive,  and  in  Col.  i,  20  in  the 
aorist  infinitive.  This  fact  most  conclusively  demon- 
strates that  it  does  not  refer  to  the  future  reconcilia- 
tion of  the  sinner.  Winer,  in  his  "  New  Testament 
Grammar/'  says  that  it  "  is  only  in  appearance  that  the 
aorist  is  used  for  the  future.''  If,  then,  the  reconcilia- 
tion took  place  in  past  time,  through  Christ's  death 
and  by  the  cross,  it  was  not  the  sinner  that  was  recon- 
ciled, for  he  is  yet  to  be  reconciled.  It  must  there- 
fore be  God  who  has  been  reconciled  to  the  justifica- 
tion of  the  sinner. 

In  Heb.  ii,  17,  we  have  it  distinctly  stated  that 
Christ  came  to  reconcile  the  Father.  "  Wherefore  in 
all  things  it  behooved  him  to  be  made  like  unto  his 
brethren,  that  he  might  be  a  merciful  and  faithful 
high  priest  in  things  pertaining  to  God,  to  make  recon- 
ciliation for  the  sin.>  of  the  people."  It  will  be  ob- 
served that  the  word  pertaining  has  been  supplied  by 
the  translators,  and  is  not  in  the  text.  It  should  read 
"a  merciful  and  faithful  high  priest  in  things  to  God, 
to  make  reconciliation."  The  only  way  that  they  at- 
tempt to  meet  this  text  is  by  saying  that  reconcilia- 
tion is  not  the  proper  translation  of  the  verb  i/.daxoaa:^ 
that  it  should  be  propitiation.    But  what  is  pmpitia- 


CAMPBELLITE  OBJECTIONS  TO  METHODISM.  273 


tion  but  a  stronger  term  for  the  same  fact — the  recon- 
ciliation of  divine  justice  to  the  pardon  of  man^s  sin? 

It  in  no  wise  meets  the  issues  of  the  case  to  cito, 
as  Mr.  Braden  does,  and  as  other  exponents  of  Camp- 
bellism  do,  the  parable  of  the  Prodigal  Son,  and  sucli 
passages  as  John  iii,  16:  God  so  loved  the  world 
that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever 
believeth  in  him  might  not  perish,  but  have  everlast- 
ing life."  For  the  question  still  remains,  What  was 
Christ  given  for  ?  What  Avas  propitiated  by  his  death  ? 
When  these  questions  are  answered,  there  will  be  the 
recognition  of  the  fact  that,  before  man  could  be  saved, 
divine  justice  must  be  reconciled. 

But  the  inspiration  of  their  strenuous  objection  to 
this  Article  of  Religion  is  the  belief  that  it  teaclies 
that  God  must  be  reconciled  to  each  individual  sinner 
through  his  (the  sinner's)  fulfillment  of  the  conditions 
to  salvation,  and  that  the  seeking  of  such  reconcilia- 
tion opens  the  way  for  penitential,  importunate  prayer — 
a  seeking  of  God  with  the  whole  heart.  It  is  at  this 
point  of  opposition  that  Methodist  mourners'  benches, 
anxious  seats,  inquiry  meetings,  seeking  salvation, 
calling  on  the  Lord  for  salvation,  and  the  like,  arc 
assaulted  and  excoriated  as  a  manifestation  of  folly — 
a  course  unwarranted  by  the  Scriptures.  Now,  in 
numerous  passages  of  Scripture  we  are  taught  that 
God  is  angry  with  the  sinner.  (Eph.  ii,  3,  and  v, 
G ;  Col.  iii,  6.)    If  angry,  certainly  not  reconciled. 


274 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


Now,  whatever  will  remove  his  righteous  wrath,  will 
reconcile  God  to  the  sinner.  We  are  told  in  John 
iii,  36,  that  faith  will  do  this. 

But  the  Savior,  in  Luke  xviii,9-14,  related  a  j)ar- 
able  to  show  how  God  becomes  propitious — is  recon- 
ciled to  the  sinner — the  Pharisee  and  the  Publican. 
Notice  the  description  of  the  prayer  of  the  publican  : 
And  the  publican,  standing  afar  off,  would  not  so 
much  as  lift  up  his  eyes  unto  heaven,  but  smote  upon 
his  breast,  saying,  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner." 
Here  is  the  representation  of  some  very  earnest  seeking — 
seeking  w^hich  nowadays  incurs  considerable  criticism, 
contempt,  and  condemnation  from  these  reformers.  Let 
it  be  noticed  again  that  the  word  translated  "  be  merci- 
ful" is  VAaxojiac,  which  is  translated  by  reconcile  in 
Heb.  ii,  1 7  ;  and  the  verbal  cognate  of  the  noun  f/y/^/ioc, 
propitiation,  in  1  John  ii,  2,  and  iv,  10.  If,  therefore,  it 
had  been  translated  "  God  be  reconciled  to  me  a  sin- 
ner," it  would  have  been  far  more  in  harmony  with 
the  Scri])tural  use  of  the  word.  The  marginal  read- 
ing in  the  Revised  Version  has  it  "  be  pr()j)itiated  to 
me  the  sinner."  So  that  a  crying  to  God  for  |)ersonal 
reconciliation  has  the  divinest  of  all  sanctions. 

With  the  teaching  of  this  parable  agree  other 
teachings  of  the  Savior  concerning  the  value  of  inter- 
cessory prayer  to  the  seeker  of  righteousness.  \\\  this 
same  chapter  he  spake  another  parable  to  teach  the 
value  of  importunity  in  prayer,  to  this  end,  that  nien 
ought  always  to  pray  and  not  t(j  faint;"  then  follows 


CAMPBELLITE  OBJECTIONS  TO  METHODISM.  275 


the  parable  of  the  UDjust  Judge  and  the  Widow, 
which,  if  it  teaches  anything,  teaches  that  God  will 
wait,  no  doubt  for  the  seeker's  good,  to  be  importuned. 
With  this  agrees  Luke  xiii,  24,  when  the  Master 
says:  "Strive  [original,  agonize]  to  enter  into  the 
strait  gate ;  for  many,  I  say  unto  you,  will  seek  to 
enter  iu,  and  shall  not  be  able.'^  Also  Matt,  v,  G : 
"  Blessed  are  they  which  do  hunger  and  thirst  after 
righteousness,  for  they  shall  be  filled."  A  hungering 
and  thirsting  after  righteousness,  that  is  not  character- 
ized by- earnest,  importunate  prayer,  would  be  exceed- 
ingly peculiar. 

All  this  opposition  is  predicated  upon  the  theory 
that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  penitent  believer  not  to 
pray,  but  to  obey.  But  the  Word  of  God  teaches  him  to 
pray,  both  in  the  examples  above  given,  and  in  numer- 
ous clear  and  explicit  precepts.  Psa.  xxvii,  8  :  "  When 
thou  said&t,  Seek  ye  my  face  ;  my  heart  said,  Thy  face. 
Lord,  will  I  seek  Isa.  Iv,  6 :  "  Seek  ye  the  Lord 
while  he  may  be  found,  call  ye  upon  him  while  he  is 
near;"  Lam.  iii,  25;  Amos  v,  4  and  6;  Acts  xvii,  27, 
and  others.  With  this  agrees  the  comprehensive 
promise  given  by  the  apostle  in  Rom.  x,  13,  and 
quoted  from  Joel  ii,  32 :  "  Whosoever  shall  call  upon 
the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved."  If  this  is  not 
warrant  sufficient  for  the  penitent  seeker's  earnest 
praying,  it  is  hard  to  conceive  what  would  be  suffi- 
cient for  these  teachers. 

But  it  is  asked,  "  Is  not  God  willing  to  forgive 


276 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


whenever  the  conditions  are  complied  with?"  Most 
surely.  But  mark,  when  the  conditions  are  complied 
witli,  when  iTpentance  is  genuine,  thorough,  comj)lete  ; 
that  is,  godly  sorrow  for  sin,  faithful  confession  r)f  sin, 
willingness  to  make  all  possible  reparation  for  sin. 
The  man  who  has  injured  his  neighbor  in  person, 
property,  or  character,  does  not  truly  repent  until  he 
is  willing  to  make  it  all  right,  so  far  as  is  in  iiis 
power.  After  this,  implicit  faith  in  Jesus  Christ. 
And  it  is  right  and  wise  for  God  to  withhold  the 
blessing  until  all  the  conditions  are  fulfilled,  until  the 
whole  heart  is  enlisted  in  seeking  and  in  the  faith. 
If  it  requires  importunacy  in  prayer  to  bring  the  soul 
of  the  disciple  of  Christ  into  the  proper  attitude  of 
submission  and  faith,  is  it  not  likely  to  require  self- 
examination,  earnest  seeking,  and  fervent  prayer,  to 
lead  the  seeker  to  that  completeness  of  repentance 
that  is  called  godly  sorrow,  and  that  implicitness  of 
trust  called  faith  of  the  heart?  In  the  sinner's  con- 
version "  faith  tovards  [or  upon]  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ'^  must  crown  repentance  toward  God.  He  who 
ridicules  intense  earnestness  in  seeking  pardon  of  sin, 
has  but  an  excedingly  limited  idea  of  what  God  re- 
quires of  personal  self-surrender  in  order  to  a  godly  life. 


ON  CREEDS  AND  DISCIPLINE, 


277 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

CAMPBELLISM  ON  CREEDS  AND  DISCIPLINE. 

Attention  has  already  been  called  to  the  fact 
that  Alexander  Campbell  at  first  started  out  with  the 
laudable  purpose  of  bringing  the  Christian  denomina- 
tions into  unity.  The  first  organized  effort  made  in 
this  direction  was  in  August,  1809,  by  his  father, 
Thomas  Campbell,  and  resulted  in  the  formation  of 
"  The  Christian  Association  of  Washington,"  *  in 
Washington  County,  Pennsylvania.  This  association 
promulgated  a  Declaration  "  of  principles,  or  an  "  Ad- 
dress,'' as  it  was  styled,  which,  to  the  writer,  as  a  bond 
of  union,  has,  as  far  as  it  goes,  all  the  characteristics 
of  a  creed ;  and  when  it  proclaims  in  the  concluding 
sentence  that  nothing  shall  be  required  of  any  one  as 
a  ^'  matter  of  Christian  faith  or  duty,  for  which  there 
can  not  be  expressly  produced  a  ^Thus  saith  the 
Lord,'  either  in  expressed  terms  or  by  approved 
precedent,"  the  question  naturally  arises.  Who  will 
be  the  judge  when  a  ^'Thus  saith  the  Lord," 
either  directly  or  by  "approved  precedent,"  is  pro- 
duced ?    It  is  right  here  where  Christian  creeds  have 


♦"Richardson's  Memoirs  of  A.  Campbell,"  p.  240. 


278 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


had  their  origin.  It  is  a  question  of  considerable 
possible  disagreement  as  to  what  is  an  approved 
precedent for  all  are  compelled  to  concede  that  ob- 
ligation rests  not  alone  upon  a  specific  and  explicit 
"Thus  saith  the  Lord/'  but  upon  inspired  example, 
reasonable  inference,  and  the  analogy  of  faith. 

There  is  no  doubt  but  the  purpose  originally  was 
to  bring  about  Christian  union,  and  establish  a  plat- 
form upon  which  all  that  do  truly  love  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  may  stand.  But  Mr.  Campbell  was  a  man  of 
strong  convictions,  and  it  was  not  long  after  the  for- 
mation of  his  societies,  until  it  was  manifest  that  he 
was  simply  the  founder  of  another  denomination,  that 
took  the  peculiar  type  of  its  faith  from  the  teachings 
of  its  founder.  The  marvel  is,  however,  that  the 
self-deception  has  been  perpetuated  in  the  belief  that 
they  offer  a  basis  broad  enough  for  all  true  Christians 
to  unite  upon,  and  that  they  are  any  thing  more  than 
another  denomination,  with  a  peculiar  creed,  so  nar- 
row that  nine-tenths  of  the  Christian  world  can  not 
subscribe  to  it.  The  facts  prove  this ;  either  the 
Christian  world  in  the  main  are  hopelessly  blind  or 
peculiarly  obstinate,  or  the  oral  creed  of  Campbellism 
is  too  circumscribed  for  anything  like  Christian  unity. 

But  Mr.  Campbell  was,  and  his  followers,  treading 
exactly  in  his  foot-steps,  are  wont  to  inveigh  against 
human  creeds.  Mr.  Campbell,  in  his  debate  with 
Professor  Rice,  affirmed  the  following  proposition : 
''Human  creeds,  as  bonds  of  union  and  communion, 


ON  CREEDS  A^W  DTSCIPLIXE. 


279 


are  necessarily  heretical  and  schismatical."  This,  in 
substance,  the  exponents  of  his  doctrines  are  to-day 
ready  to  affirm.  It  is,  however,  entirely  unnecessary 
to  follow  them  through  their  argument  against  creeds; 
for  these  arguments  are,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  proven 
to  be  fallacious  by  their  own  promulgation  and  en- 
forcement of  a  human  creed.  It  is  only  a  question 
between  an  oral  and  a  written  creed.  The  followers 
of  Campbell  have  a  very  narrow  oral  creed,  which 
they  thrust  at  the  individual  who  seeks  admission 
among  them — a  creed  that  is  very  far  from  having 
any  Thus  saith  the  Lord  for  either  one  of  its  two 
fundamental  requisitions, "  Confession  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  the  Son  of  God,''  and  immersion  in  order  to  remis- 
sion of  sin. 

Creed  is  from  credo,  I  believe.  Xow,  I  can  print  this 
belief  in  short,  formulated  propositions,  or  I  caii  simply 
publish  it  orally;  but  neither  printing  nor  oral  pub- 
lication is  necessary  to  make  it  a  creed.  It  is  a  creed 
when  it  is  a  matter  of  belief.  Most  Christians  print, 
in  Confessions  of  Faith  or  Articles  of  Religion,  what 
they  believe  the  Bible  to  teach  in  certain  matters  re- 
garded as  fundamental  or  essential.  This  A.  Camp- 
bell and  his  followers  refuse  to  do.  Is  what  they 
believe  and  require,  because  unpublished  in  a  printed 
confession,  any  more  the  truth  necessarily  than  what 
others  believe? 

Every  one  of  Mr.  Campbell's  arguments  against 
human  creeds  lies  with  equal  force  against  his  luipub- 


280 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


Ihhcd  creed;  for  by  this  unpublished  creed  his  people 
will  arraign,  try,  and  exclude  from  their  fellowship 
the  individual  who  should  teach  otherwise  aniouir 
them.  Take,  for  an  example,  the  mini>ter  of  the  gos- 
])el  among  them  who  should  come  to  the  belief  that 
sprinkling  and  pouring  are  proper  modes  of  baptism, 
and  go  to  preaching  the  same.  Would  they  not  ex- 
clude him,  or  sever  connection  with  him  ?  From 
what  stand-point  would  this  be  done  ?  From  that  of 
an  oral  creed,  which  certainly  they  can  only  claim  to 
be  their  interpretation  of  the  Scripture.  The  only 
difference  between  them  and  others  consists  in  this, 
that  the  interpretation  in  other  Churches  has  been 
formulated  beforehand  in  a  printed  statement;  in  their 
case  it  is  a  written  consensus  of  opinion  among  them, 
found  in  their  doctrinal  authors. 

It  has  already  been  said  that  to  every  one  who 
comes  seeking  admission  among  them  they  present 
their  creed,  asking  of  them  a  certain  verbal  confes- 
sion, and  immersion  for  a  certain  purpose.  And  this 
creed,  though  of  few  articles,  is  so  narrow  that  nine- 
tenths  or  more  of  as  devout,  holy,  faithful,  self-sacri- 
ficing Christians  as  are  to  be  found  in  the  world,  will 
be  excluded  by  it.  Without  fear  of  successful  con- 
tradiction, it  is  the  narrowest  creed  of  all  Protestant 
Christendom.  It  will  even  exclud<j  the  honest  Baptist, 
though  a  believer  in  exclusive  immersion. 

The  confession,  ^'  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
Son  of  God,'^  is  nowhere  in  the  Scriptures  required 


ON  CREEDS  AND  DISCIPLINE. 


281 


as  a  condition  to  salvation.  The  only  place  that  in 
this  form  it  exists  is  in  Acts  viii,  37,  and  this  passage 
is  rejected  by  the  best  commentators  as  spurious,  and 
is  not  to  be  found  in  the  Revised  Version.  Let  it 
be  remarked  that  the  expression  of  the  belief  that 
"Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God^^  is  not  saving  faith, 
but  is  a  mere  article  of  intellectual  belief.  Wicked 
men  may,  and  some  wicked  men  do,  believe  this. 
Devils  believe  it.  There  is  a  wide  difference  between 
this  mere  act  of  intellectual  faith,  and  "believing 
on  the  Son  of  God.'^  (John  ix,  35.)  The  propo- 
sition that  "  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God  is 
incomprehensible  by  mortals,  for  it  involves  the  un- 
derstanding of  the  mode  of  Divine  existence.  Mr. 
Braden,  *  in  opposing  Article  I  of  our  Articles  of 
Religion,  says  concerning  its  affirmation  of  the  Trinity 
in  Unity :  "  The  Scriptures  declare  there  is  Father, 
Son,  and  Holy  Spirit.  These,  then,  are  in  some  sense 
one ;  but  they  nowhere  teach  or  explain  how  they  are  one. 
I  do  not  know  how  they  are  one.  I  do  not  believe  they 
are  one;  for  I  know  nothing  about  it,  and  lean  not  be- 
lieve what  I  do  not  understands^  The  italics  are  given 
to  call  attention  to  the  principle  laid  down.  If  faith 
must  be  an  intelligent  understanding  of  the  subject 
believed,  then  the  belief  that  "  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son 
of  God is  a  requirement  utterly  impossible.  Now, 
while  we  do  not  agree  with  the  idea  that  a  proposi- 


"  *  Hughey  and  Braden  Debate,"  p.  518. 

24 


282 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


tion  that  is  not  comprehensible,  can  not  be  the  subject 
of  belief,  yet  it  is  true  that  the  Scriptures  do  not  require 
the  belief  of  an  incomprehensible  proposition  in  order 
to  salvation.  To  ''believe  on  the  Son  of  God"  is  to 
rest  the  faith  of  the  heart  for  salvation  on  this  divine 
personage  whom  the  Bible  calls  "  the  Son  of  God." 

The  second  article  of  this  creed  is  to  believe  that 
immersion  alone  is  baptism  ;  and  the  third  is  to  be- 
lieve that  it  is  a  necessary  condition  for  the  remission 
of  sins.  Suppose,  now,  to  illustrate  the  exclusiveness 
of  this  creed,  a  person  who  believes  that  baptism  is 
necessary  to  the  remission  of  sins,  should  believe  that 
sprinkling  is  baptism,  could  he  pass  the  narrow  doc- 
trinal gate  ?  Who  believes  he  could  ?  Suppose,  again, 
he  should  believe  immersion  is  baptism,  but  at  the 
same  time  believe  it  is  not  a  condition  to  the  remis- 
sion of  sin.  He  probably  would  pass  because  of  being 
immersed;  if  so,  it  illustrates  that  the  matter  of  form 
is  omnipotent  in  this  scheme,  while  the  matter  of  be- 
lief is  entirely  unimportant.  We  are  compelled  to 
this  view,  because  Alexander  Campbell  himself  was 
not  baptized  with  reference  to  obtaining  the  remission 
of  sins  by  baptism  ;  and  also  Baptist  baptism  is  accepted 
by  them  to-day.  Could  any  creed  put  salvation  more 
absolutely  in  the  outward  form?  In  fact,  immersion 
may  go  before  faith,  before  repentance,  and  be  for  any 
other  religious  purpose,  and  the  individual  afterward 
get  the  benefit  of  it  as  a  saving  ordinance,  but  it  mast 
not  he  omitted. 


ON  CREEDS  AND  DISCIPLINE. 


283 


But  the  creed  of  any  denomination  is  not  its  printed 
and  published  Articles  of  Religion;  for  these  are 
usually  but  partial,  and  limited  to  affirmations  antago- 
nizing what  were  believed  to  be  errors  at  the  time  of 
their  formulation.  For  example,  the  doctrines  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  are  not  all  found  in  the 
Articles  of  Religion.  But  the  doctrines  of  the  various 
denominations  are  to  be  found  in  the  general  consensus 
of  their  doctrinal  writers.  Campbellism  has  a  distinct 
and  marked  consensus.  J^'o  leader  in  Protestantism 
in  modern  times  has  more  completely  stamped  his 
peculiar  doctrinal  beliefs,  and  their  mode  of  inculca- 
tion and  defense,  upon  his  followers,  than  has  this 
man.  It  would  not  be  difficult  to  write  out  his  and 
their  creed  from  his  controversial  affirmations  and  de- 
nials. It  is  true  that  all  of  this  creed  is  not  made  a 
bond  of  union  or  communion  among  his  followers  ; 
but  enough  of  it  is  used  to  put  a  very  specific  de- 
nominational stamp  upon  the  communicants  of  their 
Churches,  and  to  make  a  doctrinal  shibboleth,  which 
is  readily  recognized  anywhere,  and  discriminated 
from  other  Christian  beliefs.  The  writer  has  fre- 
quently had  occasion  to  note  how  completely  in  forms 
of  statement,  methods  of  argumentation,  and  interpre- 
tation, his  followers  conform  to  the  model  set  for  them 
by  this  their  great  leader,  and  yet  no  people  have  more 
to  say  about  the  trammels  of  creed  and  preconceived 
opinions.  It  is  quite  amusing  at  times  to  those  who  are 
familiar  with  Mr.  CampbelPs  writings,  to  hear  these 


284 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBFAAASM. 


men  proclaim  thoir  entire  indopoiulence  of  human 
creeds  while  they  are  retailing  even  his  exegetical 
blunders. 

AVe  have  now  shown  that  Campbellism  has  a  creed 
in  the  consensus  of  its  writers,  and  in  the  uniform 
usage  of  its  societies — a  creed  that,  in  some  of  its  doc- 
trinal requirements,  will  bar  a  large  part  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church  out  of  its  societies,  and  that  in  others 
will  prohibit  its  teachers  from  inculcating  among  them 
numerous  doctrines  and  beliefs  held  by  other  Chris- 
tians; such  as  infant  baptism,  sprinkling  and  pouring 
as  baptism,  the  necessity  for  the  immediate  witness  of 
the  Spirit,  and  the  like. 

Of  course  they  claim  that  they  condemn  these  by 
the  Word  of  God.  But  who  is  the  interpreter  of  the 
Word  of  God?  They,  themselves.  And  this  is  by 
implication  to  claim  infallibility  for  their  interpreta- 
tion. It  is  a  little  singular  that  this  Church  that  be- 
gins with  a  doctrine  of  salvation  by  works,  must  land 
at  least  in  another  of  the  claims  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  the  infallibility  of  her  doctrinal  opinions. 

There  is  no  doubt  but  human  creeds  have  been  al- 
together too  minute  in  their  attempted  definitions  of 
doctrine,  and  too  exacting ;  and  that  efforts  were  made 
to  define  some  things  that  were  incapable  of  defini- 
tion, because  beyond  human  comprehension;  still  this 
concession  does  not  change  the  fact  that  creeds  that 
are  purely  and  only  human — such  because  they  are 


OiV  CREEDS  AND  DISCIPLINE. 


285 


men\s  opinions — must  be  made  tests  of  faith  and  bonds 
of  union  and  communion.  Campbellism  has  just  such 
a  creed,  and  it  is  not  any  the  less  eifectively  used  for 
this  purpose,  even  though  it  is  only  to  be  found  in  the 
consensus  of  its  writers.  And  yet  their  pulpits  un- 
ceasingly ring  with  denunciations  against  the  tyranny 
of  creeds  and  their  hindrance  to  Church  union.  The 
altogether  nonchalant  air  with  which  they  present 
their  doctrinal  scheme  and  Church  polity  as  the  one  of 
divine  institution,  and  as  offering  the  only  basis  of 
Church  union,  is  exceedingly  surprising  to  people 
who  have  not  the  same  confidence  in  their  deductions 
that  they  seem  to  have.  Their  evangelistic  propagan- 
dists generally  dwell  long  and  earnestly  upon  the 
evils  of  sectarian  divisions,  the  divisive  influence  of 
printed  creeds,  the  enthralling  character  of  disciplinary 
requirements,  and  the  sinfulness  of  sectarian  names ; 
and  with  an  assurance  that  is  truly  amazing  they 
will  invite  people  to  leave  or  avoid  the  sects,  and  join 
the  Christian  Churchy  as  though  their  small  organi- 
zation of  but  yesterday  defined  the  whole  limits  of  the 
Church  of  Christ.  What  a  comment  on  sectarian 
blindness ! 

Again,  the  same  infallible  certitude  that  they  claim 
for  their  doctrinal  teachings,  they  likewise  claim  for 
their  Church  polity.  Their  Church  polity  is  what 
might  be  styled  independent ;  that  is,  each  local  society 
has  absolute  control  over  all  its  affairs,  both  as  to  doc- 


286 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBKLLJSM. 


triuc^  and  government.  Members  pass  between  these 
separate  societies  by  letters  of  formal  introduction."  * 
The  rulers  of  these  societies  are  called  by  them  eld- 
ers," and  they  have  about  the  entire  government  in 
their  hands,  except  as  they  find  it  necessary  to  appeal 
to  the  congregation  upon  any  question  of  general 
moment. 

The  question  of  Church  polity  is  one  that  has 
been  a  subject  of  much  discussion.  This  we  do  not 
intend  to  enter  into.  We  believe  there  is  no  divinely 
instituted  form  of  Church  government.  God  has  left 
this  in  its  details  to  the  Church ;  and  whether  it  shall 
be  connectional,  as  the  Methodist  Episcopal  and  the 
Presbyterian  Churches,  or  Congregational,  or  Inde- 
pendent, we  believe  to  be  a  matter  of  indifference. 
But  it  does,  however,  look  reasonable  that  the  Church, 
being  a  divinely  ordained  organization  for  the  evan- 
gelization of  the  world,  should  have  throughout  that 
organic  bond  that  will  most  effectually  bring  all  its 
parts  into  unified  effort  for  this  purpose.  Independ- 
ency certainly  can  not  do  this,  only  as  it  organizes 
societies  indei>endeutly  of  the  Church,  and  of  which 
the  Church  at  large  is  itself  independent. 

While  the  polity  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  is  subject  to  modification  by  its  legislative 
body,  the  General  Conference,  the  polity  of  the  Church 
founded  by  Alexander  Campbell  must  remain  forever 


*  "  Christian  System,"  ch.  "  Christian  Discipline." 


ON  CREEDS  AND  DISCIPLINE, 


287 


unchanged,  for  that  is  claimed  by  them  to  be  of  di- 
vine appointment.  Should  any  bodies  springing  up 
among  them  come  to  believe  that  the  polity  might  be 
lawfully  changed,  there  would  be  two  Churches,  each 
claiming  to  be  the  Christian  Church.  Mr.  Campbell 
has  been  the  sole  legislator  for  this  Church.  He  is  the 
founder  of  its  economy,  as  well  as  the  author  of  its 
doctrines.  The  Christian  Discipline,''  contained  in 
*'The  Christian  System,"  pages  85  to  90,  lays  down 
the  discipline  of  this  Church,  that  by  which  it  must 
be  governed  for  all  time;  for  it  was  evolved  by 
Mr.  Campbell  out  of  the  New  Testament.  If  so, 
it  must  be  forever  and  unchangeably  obligatory, 
according  to  their  teaching.  Is  not  this  putting 
a  great  amount  of  confidence  in  one  man?  To-day 
the  exact  form  of  discipline  presented  in  the  "  Chris- 
tian System  "  by  this  one  man  is  the  absolute  law  of 
the  Church.  And  yet  they  are  wont  to  claim  they  have 
no  discipline.  It  is  true  their  societies  have  never 
adopted  formally  any  form  of  discipline.  Why  ?  Be- 
cause, in  all  essential  matters  of  government,  that  was 
evolved  out  of  the  Word,  according  to  their  belief 
and  teachings  by  Alexander  Campbell,  and  all  that  is 
necessary  now  for  them  to  do,  is  to  go  to  the  "  Chris- 
tian System,'^  and  ascertain  what  are  its  directions, 
w^hen  needed. 

Now,  suppose  that,  in  some  future  period,  some  so- 
cieties among  them  come  to  the  conclusion  that  this 
discipline  is  not  of  divine  ordain ment,  but  that  there 


288 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


may  be,  and  ought  to  be,  some  modifications  of  it; 
^vluit  is  left  for  them  but  the  establishment  of  another 
Christian  Church 

The  writer  is  aware  of  tlie  fact  that  they,  to  some 
extent,  recognize  the  law  of  expediency ;  but  only  in 
minor  things;  not  in  the  matter  of  Church  govern- 
ment, such  as  the  entire  independency  of  each  society, 
the  authority  of  the  elders,  and  the  exclusion  of  mem- 
bers for  immorality  or  heresy.  Again,  even  in  mat- 
ters of  expediency  Mr.  Campbell  has  furnished  them 
with  disciplinary  rules  that  they  uniformly  find  it  ex- 
pedient to  observe.  Methodists  no  more  carefully 
follow  the  forms  of  order  in  business  laid  down  in  our 
Book  of  Discipline  than  the  followers  of  Campbell 
follow  his  directions  in  matters  merely  expedient. 

The  preachers  of  this  denomination  are  accus- 
tomed to  hold  up  to  ridicule  and  public  condemnation 
the  system  of  probationship  in  the  Methodist  Episco- 
pal Church,  a  system  merely  prudential,  and  that 
does  not  deprive  any  one  of  any  of  the  spiritual  priv- 
ileges belonging  to  Church  membership,  such  as  the 
means  of  grace,  the  sacrament,  and  the  helps  of  Chris- 
tian fellowship;  but  only  limits  as  to  official  priv- 
ileges, such  as  holding  certain  offices,  sitting  in  cases 
of  Church  trial,  etc.;  and  accords  the  right  of  with- 
drawal without  question,  if  dissatisfied  with  doctrines 
or  polity,  and  accords  the  Church  the  right,  without 
formal  trial,  if  she  is  not  satisfied  with  the  Christian 
life  or  character  of  the  probationer,  to  dismiss  him. 


ON  CREEDS  AND  DISCIPLINE. 


289 


This  has  been  variously  characterized  as  the  "back 
porch  ^'  or  kitchen/^  or  "anteroom^'  of  the  Meth- 
odist Church.  After  all  this,  would  it  be  thought  a 
matter  within  the  range  of  possibility  that  this  Church 
has  a  si/stem  of  prohationship  also?  Yet  such  is  the 
fact — an  indefinite  prohationship  or  novitiate.  In 
their  Discipline,  "  Christian  System,"  page  88,  "  Chris- 
tian Discipline,"  section  10,  we  have  the  following: 

"The  whole  community  act,  and  ought  to  act,  in 
receiving  and  excluding  persons;  but  in  the  aggregate 
it  can  never  become  judges  of  offenses  and  a  tribunal 
of  trial.  Such  an  institution  never  was  set  up  by  Di- 
vine authority.  Xo  community  is  composed  only  of 
wise  and  discreet  full-grown  men.  The  Christian 
Church  engrosses  old  men,  young  men,  and  babes  in 
Christ.  Shall  the  voice  of  a  babe  be  heard  or  counted 
as  a  vote  in  a  case  oj  discipline?  AVhat  is  the  use  of 
bishops  in  a  Church,  if  all  are  to  rule ;  of  judges,  if 
all  are  to  be  judges  of  fact  and  law?  Xo  wonder  that 
broils  and  heart-burnings  and  scandals  of  all  sorts 
disturb  those  communities  ruled  by  a  democracy  of 
the  whole — where  everything  is  to  be  judged  in  pub- 
lic and  full  assembly.  Such  is  not  the  Christian  sys- 
tem. It  ordains  that  certain  persons  shall  judge  and 
rule,  and  that  '  all  things  shall  be  done  decently  and 
in  order.' " 

I  have  italicized  to  call  attention  to  the  recogni- 
tion of  mere  novitiates  in  the  Church  and  the  limita- 
tions put  on  them.    Limitations,  the  exact  counter- 

25 


290 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


part  of  those  put  upon  probationers  in  the  Meth- 
odist Church.  But  Methodists  never  regarded  it  a 
matter  of  Divine  injunction,  but  only  (^f  Church  ex- 
pediency. 

Mr.  Wesley  laid  down  at  the  head  (►f  the  "  Gen- 
eral Rules''  of  the  societies  formed  l)y  him,  the  only 
true  basis  of  Christian  unity;  namely,  ''A  desire  to 
flee  the  wrath  to  come  and  to  })o  saved  from  their 
sins,  and  an  evidencing  of  such  desire  by  an  avoid- 
ance of  all  manner  of  evil,  and  doing  good  in  every 
possible  way."  The  General  Rules  he  wrote  out  are 
rules  of  Christian  morality.  He  laid  down  no  doc- 
trinal test,  as  did  Alexander  Campbell;  much  less  did 
he  require  conformity  to  a  mere  ordinance,  in  one 
special  form,  as  a  condition  to  Christian  fellowship 
and  also  a  condition  to  salvation.  Mr.  Wesley's 
"General  Rules"  could  unite  all  Christians  in  one, 
through  seeking  after  righteousness,  until  they  come 
to  unity  in  knowledge  of  the  truth.  Mr.  Campbell's 
scheme  would  exclude,  by  a  mere  ritualistic  perform- 
ance, the  vast  majority  of  the  Christian  world,  and 
keep  them  a})art  until  they  could  see  eye  to  eye  in  the 
mode  of  the  observance  of  an  ordinance.  When  their 
attention  is  called  to  this  fact,  with  sublime  innocency 
they  tell  us  they  require  this  because  the  Bible  re- 
quires it;  at  once,  by  an  inevitable  implication,  in  the 
face  of  the  honest  convietions  of  a  majority  of  Chris- 
tians, claiming  that  their  interpretation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures is  infallible. 


ON  CREEDS  AND  DISCIPLINE.  291 


Again,  they  are  continually  descanting  upon  union 
and  Christian  liberty,  while,  at  the  same  time,  they  in- 
sist upon  union  in  their  own  terms,  and  refuse  to  in- 
telligent, conscientious,  free,  moral  agents  the  deter- 
mination of  the  mode  in  which,  and  the  end  for  which, 
they  shall  receive  a  mere  ritualistic  ordinance.  For 
centuries  the  Christian  world  has  been  contending 
about  the  mode,  design,  aud  import  of  w^ater  baptism ; 
the  best  of  Christians  have  been  enlisted  upon  all 
sides  of  this  question.  The  grace  of  God,  in  its  effect 
on  Christian  character,  life,  and  spirituality,  has  made 
no  distinction  among  the  disputants.  Affusionists — 
pa^dobaptists — have  manifested  just  as  much  faith,  de- 
votion, self-sacrificing,  and  have  had  just  as  much 
success,  have  died  just  as  triumphant,  as  have  those 
who  fought  for  exclusive  immersion  and  adult  bap- 
tism alone.  And  yet,  despite  these  indisputable  facts, 
in  this  nineteenth  century,  there  springs  up  a  denom- 
ination that  maintains  that  the  only  bond  of  Christian 
unity  is  immersion  as  a  necessary  condition  to  the  re- 
mission of  sins.  In  other  words,  that  very  ritualistic 
symbolism  that  has  been  the  cause  of  more  discussion, 
and  about  which  there  has  been  more  honest  division 
of  oj)inion  in  the  Church  of  all  ages,  is  at  once 
definitely  settled  by  them  in  one  mode,  for  one 
design,  and  to  one  import;  and  the  Christian  world 
are  called  upon  to  stop  their  disputing  and  come 
forward  and  acce})t  the  final  settlement  of  this  ques- 
tion.    It    is    doubtful    if  it    is   possible   to  find 


292 


ERRORS  OF  CAMPBELLISM. 


another  example  of  more  audacious  dogmatism,  of 
more  profound  confidence  in  their  theories,  and, 
necessarily  because  of  these,  uncharitableness  to- 
wards other  Christians,  than  this.  And  this  is 
Campbellism ! 


Date  Due 


OC  1854 



— ^ 



1  



1  

